Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

To be considered upon Tuesday 19 October.

WEST YORKSHIRE (PARKING AND TRANSPORT) BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (LIVERPOOL STREET STATION) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 19 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Spain (Foreign Minister)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the particular matters he discussed at his recent meeting with the Foreign Minister of Spain.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): As I told my hon. Friend on 14 July 1982, I had a friendly general discussion about matters of common interest to the United Kingdom and Spain.

Mr. Proctor: Did my right hon. Friend discuss the status of Gibraltar with either the Foreign Secretary or the King of Spain? If he did, is he aware of the anxiety felt by the people of Gibraltar about constitutional matters, in view of his treatment of the people of Northern Ireland on constitutional matters?

Mr. Prior: Gibraltar was, of course, mentioned, but not discussed in any substance. It would have been wrong if I had done so. I completely disagree with the second part of what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. McQuarrie: I thank my right hon. Friend for his written answer on the subject. Did the Spanish Foreign Minister tell him whether the Lisbon agreement was likely to be implemented soon?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. That was not discussed in any detail and it would have been quite wrong for me to do so. It is a matter for the Foreign Secretary.

Northern Ireland Bill

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his programme for the implementation of the Northern Ireland Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what period of campaigning is being proposed for elections to the new Assembly in October; and on what date it is proposed that the new Assembly should meet.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has ascertained whether any of the political parties of Northern Ireland have decided against taking part in the elections for the proposed Northern Ireland Assembly.

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly to be held.

Mr. Prior: The election to the Northern Ireland Assembly will take place on Wednesday 20 October. I shall soon be making the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Order 1982, which is subject to negative resolution, and which will include the election timetable and the rules for the conduct of the election. None of the Northern Ireland parties has said that it will not contest the election. No date has yet been fixed for the first meeting of the Assembly.

Mr. Arnold: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Cabinet upon their courage in perservering with the Northern Ireland legislation during its passage through the House? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity fairly soon to point out to the SDLP the considerable advantages being offered to all political parties in Northern Ireland in the legislation, coupled with a warning that that party may well face political oblivion if it does not participate?

Mr. Prior: As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I hope that all political parties will take part in the elections. It is in their interest that they should do so. I thank him for his kind words. Congratulations on this or any other subject are hard to come by in the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I intend to call first the three hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that when the Assembly operates many of the general debates and debates on orders dealing with Northern Ireland that take place will be transferred to the Assembly so that we may lighten the load in the House?

Mr. Prior: While I hope that the Assembly will debate all the draft orders and many others as well, they will still have to come to the House until there is devolution, after which the responsibility will no longer be ours. I hope that the result of the Northern Ireland people and their elected Assembly having an opportunity to discuss those matters might mean some limitation of the time that they take here.

Mr. Flannery: Even though none of the political parties has said that it will not take part in the election, is there not grave doubt whether the SDLP will take part? Is the Minister aware of any reason why the SDLP has grave doubts about taking part in the election?

Mr. Prior: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to persuade the SDLP to take part. It has doubts about whether the proposals go far enough to meet its point of view, and the same doubt has been expressed in the opposite direction by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux).

Sir William van Straubenzee: May I congratulate my hon. right hon. Friend on surviving the harassment from behind him at the height of the commitment of young men to the Falklands crisis, which was a period of shame for many members of the Tory Party?

Mr. Budgen: What rubbish.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Does my right hon. Friend understand that it was necessary to fill the vacuum caused by the present political gap in Northern Ireland and that many of his hon. Friends wish him well in his endeavours?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I share his view that there has been and remains in Northern Ireland a political vacuum that must be filled. It is right that it should be filled by the people of Northern Ireland playing a major part in their own affairs, and I hope that they will do so. I hope that now that the debate is over in this House for the time being even my hon. Friends who have opposed the move most strongly will rally round to make the Assembly work.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What is the point of making an order that is subject to the negative procedure if the House will have no opportunity, should it so wish, to negative it before it comes into force?

Mr. Prior: Because that is the procedure that has to be adopted.

Mr. Powell: It is an insult to the House.

Mr. Fitt: Does the Secretary of State agree that a number of his predecessors have accepted that, although direct rule may be a second best option, it is not the answer to Northern Ireland's problems and that the only way to make political progress is to bring about a situation in which the majority and minority community representatives can arrive at an accommodation in the interests of the whole community? Will he take it from me, as a founder member and former leader of the SDLP, that not all its members are opposed to fighting elections, that a small contingent is taking orders from the Taoiseach, whose advice is not to take part in the elections, and that the SDLP as a party will, unless the moon or sun falls from the sky, be fighting the elections?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, particularly in the earlier part of his supplementary question, and for the general support that he has given the Government and myself in piloting the Bill through the House. I recognise that there are differences of opinion in all the main political parties of Northern Ireland, but I understood that they were all

committed to devolution. Listening to the right hon. Member for Down, South I begin to wonder whether that is the Official Unionist view.

Mr. Peter Robinson: In view of the many advantages that the Secretary of State often tells us will flow from the existence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, does he accept that there would be advantage to others apart from the indigenous political parties in taking part in the election, and that the British Labour and Conservative Parties should put forward candidates? As the Secretary of State has often also told us that he has adopted Northern Ireland, would he consider assessing his own standing in the community?

Mr. Prior: I might ask the hon. Gentleman in turn why he does not stand as a Labour or Conservative candidate.

Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that I, too, am pleased that he survived the harassment from behind him and the "Get Prior" brigade during the Bill's passage through the House? But much more disturbing is the relationship with the Government of Southern Ireland.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Ask a question.

Mr. Concannon: If the hon. Gentleman will stop yapping like a little dog in a corner I shall get on.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this not Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. The right hon. Gentleman must ask a question; he can wrap his views up within the question.

Mr. Concannon: That is right, Mr. Speaker, but comments from a sedentary position put one off, especially when it is the end of term.
I am perturbed by the worsening relationship—[Interruption.] I know that we have to spin out Question Time, as there are not many questions.
Is the Secretary of State aware that some of us are perturbed by the worsening relationship with the South, which is not only a political problem but may spill over and affect good government, security and other matters? Should not the fences be mended as quickly as possible, as there is a link between political and security matters?

Mr. Prior: I share a great deal of the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the worsening relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic. I hope that we can cool the situation and restore equilibrium after the summer holidays. To continue in the present vein is not doing ourselves or the Republic any good.

Security

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security of the Province.

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Prior: Since I last answered questions on 1 July, the security forces in Northern Ireland have not suffered any deaths or serious injuries, although they have been subjected to a number of shooting attacks.
On 16 July a civilian, the victim of a so-called punishment shooting, was left to bleed to death in Londonderry. The Provisional IRA has acknowledged its responsibility for that murder. On the following day the body of a man was left on waste ground in Belfast. He had been battered to death, and his murder seems to have been connected with the activities of terrorist organisations.
On 6 July a civilian was injured when gunmen fired at him as he was standing outside his home in Belfast. Three days later another man, abducted from a club in Belfast, was later admitted to hospital with serious gunshot wounds to his legs and arms.
There have been 13 bomb attacks on property. Three people were apprehended at the scene of one of these attacks, and they have since been charged with a number of serious terrorist offences. There is grave anxiety that the pregnant wife of one of them may have been kidnapped by terrorists. As a follow-up to the same investigation, eight other people have been charged with serious offences and a large quantity of bomb-making equipment, arms and ammunition has been discovered.
Since 1 July a total of 22 weapons and 909 rounds of ammunition have been recovered by the security forces. Thirty-nine people have been charged with terrorist-type offences, including one with murder and 10 with attempted murder. In the same period the security forces neutralised nine bombs.

Mr. Molyneaux: In view of the hostility of the Irish Republic, which has greatly increased since the Falkland Islands battles, will the Secretary of State take a fresh look at security on the frontier of the United Kingdom, and will he and his Cabinet colleagues set about eradicating terrorist gangs in every part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Prior: That is precisely what we have been seeking to do for 10 years. We continue to have close co-operation with the Gardai and the security forces over the border, and there has been a great deal of success in recent weeks by the Gardai.
We have a great deal more to do. We continue to make as much progress as we can, but we shall not be aided in improving the situation by a worsening relationship with the Republic. We need the co-operation that we seek, and I believe that we can maintain it.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Did my right hon. Friend discuss in the United States the commendable efforts that are being made to stop cash and arms going from there to the IRA and the INLA? What progress is being made with smashing the Republican and non-Republican extortion rackets, which finance terrorism in the Province?

Mr. Prior: With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, a great deal of publicity was given in the United States to the terrorist attacks in London. Utter condemnation of them was shown by all sections of the community. I was able to take part in a number of television and radio programmes, when I explained to the public of the United States where their money went. I said that if they allowed themselves to believe that they were supporting honourable causes, they were much mistaken, as they could see from the results of the bombing in London.
With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, of course we are extremely worried about the growth of crime, whether it be protection rackets, gaming

machines, or the robbery of banks and post offices, which has become part of the terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland to obtain funds to buy arms. I am making sure that much more attention is paid to that now than before.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the horrific atrocities committed by the IRA and the INLA in Northern Ireland and in this part of the United Kingdom over the past thirteen years, will the Secretary of State have talks with the Roman Catholic Church in Northern Ireland about the excommunication of those evil men? Such a decision would have a greater impact on the community and would bring violence to an end sooner than will all the words of condemnation that are said after each murder.

Mr. Prior: I am in contact with the leaders of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland. I am grateful for the much greater assistance that they have given in recent months in condemning outright the murders and terrorist activity and in seeking to get the Catholic community to come forward with more information about terrorist activity. It is not for me to advise them on other matters, but I shall continue to talk to them.

Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that the many thousands of Irish men and women who work in our hospitals, factories, coal mines, steelworks and shipyards and who make and repair our sewers and railways, as well as those who serve in our Armed Forces, some of whom were in the Falkland Islands task force and served with distinction, abhor more than the rest of the population, if that is possible, the foul deeds that have been done by the mindless creatures who bomb, maim and kill in the name of Ireland? Should not the Secretary of State take this opportunity to stop the ugly rumours that the Government are contemplating bringing in next Session spiteful and vindictive legislation against the many thousands of honest, hard working Irish men and women who have served and are serving the country well?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that?

Mr. James Lamond: Stop yapping.

Mr. Prior: Those are matters that are more for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary than for me. I pay tribute to the many Irishmen who not only condemn these murders, but do much to support the United Kingdom in the cause of justice.

Mr. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend, in view of the list of arrests and the successes in recovering bomb material that he has just given, convey to the Chief Constable and officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary the warm and sincere congratulations and admiration of the House? Further, will he give consideration to the full implementation of the Lord Justice Edmund-Davies award to police officers, because I think that a police officer in Belfast is entitled to the same rate of pay as police officers in Birmingham?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the RUC. I am certain that his view is shared by every hon. Member. With regard to the latter part of his question, I am in further contact with the police authority and will report back to the House after the recess.

Mr. James A. Dunn: With regard to the request that was made and agreed at the time of the Edmund-Davies commission that observers from the Police Federation of


Northern Ireland should be allowed to attend meetings of the police authority, notwithstanding any reason that may now be given by the police authority, will the Secretary of State convey to those concerned the anxieties expressed by me and my parliamentary colleagues over the fact that the agreement has not been implemented? There is no reason why it should not be. To continue in the same vein is wholly unacceptable to any fair-minded person.

Mr. Prior: I think that those views are already known to the police authority, but I shall have an early opportunity of reinforcing them.

Equal Pay Act

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will seek to amend the Equal Pay Act in the light of recommendations from the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): The Government are fully committed to the principle of equal pay and it is against this background that we shall be giving careful consideration to the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland. Interested persons and organisations, including commission members, will of course be consulted to enable a considered view to be formed as to the desirability and implications of the specific amendments that the Equal Opportunities Commission proposes.

Miss Lestor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware of the urgency of ensuring that Northern Ireland conforms with the equal pay directive, bearing in mind the constant promptings from the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland and taking account of the fact that in Northern Ireland, as in many other parts of the country, women are becoming increasingly the sole breadwinner and their families are being pushed into more and more poverty because of the inequality in wages?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Lady will know, because she has a close interest in the subject, that the Government are studying the terms of the European Court's judgment. We shall consider what action is required. The law in Northern Ireland at present is similar to that in Great Britain. We would expect to implement any changes that are made in Great Britain to enable the United Kingdom as a whole to meet the Treaty obligations.

Mr. Marlow: Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we had almost reached the stage of equal opportunities, is it not time that the last vestiges of this rotten quango were wrapped up, if only to give the hon. Lady something important to talk about instead of drivelling on about this wretched issue?

Miss Lestor: Like men.

Mr. Butler: The Equal Opportunities Commission has a statutory job to do. It has made 14 recommendations which it considers serious. They will be looked at seriously. As I have said, we shall make decisions in the light of what is decided in Great Britain and the application of such decisions to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Soley: I welcome the Minister's response, too. However, further to the important question asked by my

hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), does the Minister recognise that many families in Northern Ireland are falling into the poverty trap because the high rate of male unemployment results in women being part-time earners and thus not always being able to benefit from supplementary benefit and other State benefits?

Mr. Butler: That supplementary question strayed a little from the original question. Industry in Northern Ireland is proportionately more dependent on female labour than is industry in the rest of the United Kingdom. Also, among the women registered for work there is, mercifully, a lower level of unemployment than for men.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend intend to institute any inquiries into the allegations that are frequently made that equal pay legislation acts to the disadvantage of women and creates unemployment among them?

Mr. Butler: In so far as it falls outside the law, that point is serious and should be equally considered.

Assembly Elections (Disqualification)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take immediate steps to seek to amend the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 to ensure that members of the Irish Parliament are eligible to stand for election to the new Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. Prior: Any change in the current law would involve primary legislation and would have to be considered in the general context of disqualification criteria. A review of the criteria for disqualification from this House is currently in progress. A report will go to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council later this year. There is a close link between the criteria for disqualification from the Northern Ireland Assembly and those for this House. The outcome of the review will have implications for Assembly disqualification criteria.
I well understand the political sensitivities of the current law on this point but I believe that the right course is to await that report and to consider at that point whether any provisions of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 require amendment.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Secretary of State agree that the worst possible outcome would be if the SDLP felt unable to contest the elections in October because its deputy leader, Mr. Seamus Mallon, was disqualified by a fairly obscure Act of Parliament? Does he agree that it would be a source of strength rather than one of weakness if some Members of the Assembly were Members either of this House or of the Irish Parliament as well?

Mr. Prior: I hope that any member of the SDLP who wishes to take part in the elections for the Assembly will do so and, if elected, take his seat in it. Mr. Mallon, who is a member of the Senate, will have to exercise his judgment. I hope that he will decide, if he is elected, to take his place in the Assembly. Nevertheless, there is no way in which the law can be changed without primary legislation.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is there any reason to suppose that Mr. Mallon was unaware of the provisions of the 1975 Act when he decided to accept nomination for membership of the Senate of the Irish Republic?

Mr. Prior: It is for Mr. Mallon, not for me, to answer that. The Act is quite obscure. There is a reasonable chance that he was unaware of it. There has been an erroneous view that in some way the Secretary of State has the discretion, or the Assembly has the discretion on the advice of the Secretary of State, to make a change. There is no such discretion.

Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some people believe that no Members of the new Assembly should be other than British subjects who are resident in the United Kingdom and that they should be Members of no national Parliament outside the United Kingdom?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I am aware of that view.

Mr. Fitt: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is highly unlikely that the SDLP will refuse to participate in the elections because of the present circumstances of Mr. Seamus Mallon? Does he further agree that, while Mr. Mallon may have been unaware of the provisions of the 1975 Act—indeed it is highly likely that he was unaware of them—the person who was not unaware of them is the present Taoiseach? Does he agree that Mr. Mallon's appointment was intended to embarrass the British Government at that time?

Mr. Prior: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. All I can say is that it is better for Mr. Mallon to state whether he was aware of the legislation rather than for others to come to conclusions.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Secretary of State aware that any attempt by the Government to bend the laws of the United Kingdom to rescue one individual from the consequences of his own judgment would be greatly misunderstood and greatly resented by the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior: Many things are misunderstood and misrepresented by people in Northern Ireland. My job is to try to make them understand all the things that go on.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that, as well as opening the door for Mr. Mallon, such a ludicrous decision would also allow in IRA supporters such as Neil Blaney? Does he believe that that would be helpful or harmful to the prospect of agreement in the Assembly?

Mr. Prior: Many of these things are not particularly helpful. I am simply trying to get started an Assembly that could help the people of Northern Ireland. It is remarkable how good people are at putting up difficulties. If they would only co-operate and do something useful, it would be helpful for all of us.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the report will at least be considered by the Government before the arrangements for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections are made? Does he recognise the significance of the decision for the SDLP's decision to take part in those elections? Can he assure the House that he does not intend that the new Northern Ireland Assembly will in any way repeat the experience of the Stormont devolution?

Mr. Prior: I can give the hon. Lady an assurance about her last point. I do not yet know when the report will be available. Bearing in mind that the election is to be held on 20 October, I doubt whether the report will be available

beforehand. We are dealing with a sensitive and difficult matter. I am taking it extremely seriously. As is clear from this House, there are difficult and divided views on the subject. I shall have to advise the House nearer or at the time as to what I believe is the best course of action. I urge the SDLP to take part in the election and, if elected, to take its seats in the Assembly and to play a full part in. Northern Irish affairs. That is what is necessary.

De Lorean Car Company

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement about developments at the De Lorean plant in West Belfast.

Mr. Butler: I have little to add to my reply to my hon. Friend on 1 July.
Discussions are continuing with a United Kingdom consortium and with Mr. De Lorean, concerning the acquisition of the business and the eventual resumption of production at the Dunmurry factory. I am, however, glad to say that former employees of De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. have now called off their occupation and picketing of the factory premises.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is time for the discussions between the receiver, the consortium or with Mr. De Lorean unlimited? If it is not, when does the cut-off period come?

Mr. Butler: Time is not unlimited, because at the end of May the receiver-managers said that they would have to set preparations in hand for realising the company's assets. On the other hand, the Government intend—the receiver-managers are aware of this—that as much time as is reasonable should be allowed to bring the present negotiations to fruition.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister agree that the workers' occupation was a sign of deep desperation in the search for and defence of jobs in Northern Ireland? Could not the Government support them? Is he aware that many of the workers helped De Lorean with production difficulties? Does he agree that by getting the rights to the car, for which the taxpayer has paid heavily and surely deserve, the workers could be helped, if they so wish, to set up a workers' co-operative and to get the car on to European and other markets?

Mr. Butler: I do not know whether the occupation was a sign of desperation. It prejudiced the negotiations that the receiver-managers were having. About 200 employees have now been taken on once more to carry out maintenance work and to ensure that cars can be shipped from the factory.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister has referred only to a United Kingdom consortium. Have there been inquiries from further afield, for example from Nissan, which, I understand, is no longer interested in building in Great Britain but might be interested in purchasing a brand new, highly automated car assembly plant in Northern Ireland, even if it did not build a De Lorean car but one of its own models?

Mr. Butler: During the many months since the receivership started there have been many inquiries of various kinds. The only serious interest at the moment is from the United Kingdom consortium and from Mr. De Lorean in America.

Mr. Soley: In view of the acute anxiety in Northern Ireland about the 21 per cent. unemployment, the acute anxiety of employees at De Lorean and the Minister's statement the other night about Harland and Wolff, is it not time for the Government to make a statement about their intentions with regard to public investment, so that the people of Northern Ireland can have some security for the future and some idea of where the economy is going?

Mr. Butler: The question relates to De Lorean. The Government could not have done more to help with regard to De Lorean and to encourage the receiver-managers in every possible way to try to find a way forward. That is the positive help that we are giving in this case.

Housing (Improvement)

Mr. William Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many (a) rural cottages and (b) older post-war Housing Executive dwellings have been improved in the most recent convenient period for which figures are available.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): In 1981–82 improvements were made to some 186 rural cottages owned by the Housing Executive. This year the executive has already begun work on improvements to 864 cottages and expects to start improvements to the remainder next year.
The Housing Executive's records do not detail the ages of houses on which improvements are made.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that we are extremely pleased with the progress that has finally been made with the improvement of rural cottages? Is he further aware that there has been great disappointment in the past about setting out programmes for houses that were not fulfilled in the proposed time scale? Will he therefore ensure that the targets for the post-war dwellings improvement scheme can be met? Does he agree that it would be better for people to have a happy surprise if houses are completed early, rather than their not being done at all? What will be the financial arrangements for the improvement of postwar dwellings? Will it be the same source as for the improvement of rural cottages?

Mr. Mitchell: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Expectations were aroused that it would be possible to complete the rural cottage improvements much earlier than has been achieved. It took longer to start the scheme than had been expected, but I assure him that in the next 12 months very substantial progress will be made.

Mr. Stephen Ross: What progress has been made in the sale of publicly owned property in Northern Ireland that has been modernised in that way?

Mr. Mitchell: Some 10,000 public sector houses in Northern Ireland have been sold to the occupiers since the beginning of last year. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that that total appears to be above the general level in the United Kingdom as a whole. It is certainly the largest for any public housing authority in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kilfedder: As the Minister knows from his experience at the Department of the Environment that there is a very long waiting list for homes in Northern Ireland, will he persuade the Housing Executive to hand over empty houses that are in a habitable condition to people who are desperate for homes?

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of any such houses, I shall be glad to have the matter looked into.

Mr. Speaker: Dr. Mawhinney.

Dr. Mawhinney: Can my hon. Friend tell the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) indicated to me that he would like to ask a supplementary question on this. I think that there will be time for both his questions.

Dr. Mawhinney: What proportion of the cost of improvements will have been paid for by taxes raised in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mitchell: There is no separate accounting in the form in which the hon. Gentleman's question invites me to answer.

Prison System

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to eliminate special category status from Northern Ireland prisons on the opening of the new prison complex at Maghaberry; and what effect the opening of the new prison will have on the Northern Ireland prison system.

Mr. Prior: I have no plans at present to eliminate special category status or to move the remaining special category prisoners from their existing accommodation at Her Majesty's prison Maze compound.
The larger of the two new prisons at Maghaberry will provide accommodation for 450 male prisoners. It is expected to be ready for occupation early in 1983 and will be used to deal with overcrowding, which still exists elsewhere in the prison system. How far that can be achieved and maintained depends upon the future prison population.
The smaller prison for women at Maghaberry is expected to be ready later next year. When it opens, the existing women's prison at Armagh, the greater part of which is over 200 years old, will be closed.

Dr. Mawhinney: Would the opening of the new prison at Maghaberry be an appropriate occasion for the House to convey through my right hon. Friend to everyone in the Northern Ireland prison service our appreciation and gratitude for the courageous, dedicated and professional job that they do on our behalf?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. Tributes have been paid in the House today to both the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Northern Ireland prison service. I am sure that they will be very pleased to hear of those well merited tributes.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there are no commitments or understandings which stand in the way of the complete abolition of special category status in the prisons of Northern Ireland and that it is desirable that this unacceptable anomaly be eliminated as soon as possible?

Mr. Prior: There are no commitments or understandings of any kind. On the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, again this is a matter that must be kept under review to see how we get on.

Mr. Fitt: Has the, Secretary of State's attention been drawn to the unanimous condemnation, voiced in the editorial comments of the Irish newspapers, of the terrible carnage in London last week? In particular, is he aware of the humane and compassionate editorial in the Irish Press immediately following the terrible brutality in London? Is he aware, however, that some of the writers of those editorials who condemn the violent activities of the IRA also support political status, particularly the editor of the Irish Press? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that when the perpetrators of the terrible crimes in London are apprehended there will never be any question of their being given special category status?

Mr. Prior: There can be absolutely no question of political status for anyone convicted of these terrible crimes. I am, however, grateful for the editorial comments of the Irish Press in the past 10 days. I am also grateful for the statements by Ministers of the Irish Republic, including the Irish Prime Minister, and for the action taken in the Tuite case, which was a great improvement on the previous situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Heddle: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.

Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the remarks reported to have been made by the secretary of the Confederation of Health Service Employees to the effect that he would recommend that his members should break the code of conduct and put patients' lives at risk in pursuit of a 12 per cent. pay claim? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be tragic news for the Health Service, and especially for patients, if a union enjoying monopoly power were prepared to put self-service before public service?

The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in wholly condemning any action that would break the code of conduct, which would result only in bringing maximum misery and harm to the sick, the old and the injured and would be utterly disgraceful. I hope that the Health Service unions will listen to what I understand is the advice of the TUC, namely, that any such action would be quite unacceptable.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In view of the widespread comment in the Irish media on the dressing down administered on Tuesday by a Foreign Office Minister to the Irish ambassador, will the Prime Minister consider whether it would be right for a formal statement to be issued on behalf of Her Majesty's Government making clear the nature of the intimation and the background to it? Is the right hon. Lady aware that many people in the House and out of doors hope that the forthcoming recess will be an occasion for her to secure some modicum of peace and relaxation?

The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's first question, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State,

Foreign and Commonwealth Office, made it perfectly clear to the Irish ambassador that no commitment exists for Her Majesty's Government to consult the Irish Government on matters affecting Northern Ireland. That has always been our position. We reiterate and emphasise it, so that everyone is clear about it.

Mr. Concannon: What about the constitution?

The Prime Minister: I said, "on matters affecting Northern Ireland". [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) wish to ask a question in the middle of my reply to a supplementary?
I thank the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) very much for his kind remarks and fully reciprocate them.

Sir John Eden: On that last point, will my right hon. Friend have a really good holiday, knowing that it is extremely well earned and that the vast majority of people in this country want the benefit for many years to come of her strength of purpose and clarity of vision?

The Prime Minister: Depending upon events, I hope to be in a position to take a good holiday after this momentous year. As I have said to my hon. Friend and others before, I do not think that I could take more than another 10 years such as this has been.

Mr. Foot: May I join the apparent sense of jollification by saying to the right hon. Lady how relieved and grateful we are for the U-turn that she has taken regarding the "Atlantic Conveyor"? That will help a number of workers in the shipyards to have decent holidays as well as some work. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is appalling that there should have to be a war to get work into British shipyards? Does she further agree with the head of British Shipbuilders that this is a vote of confidence in British Shipbuilders? Will the right hon. Lady guarantee that it will have that vote of confidence for years ahead?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman struggles too hard with his question. The "Atlantic Conveyor" was lost in unique circumstances—circumstances in which we had the support of the whole House and of the people. I felt very strongly, as did almost everyone, that the ship should be built in this country. As I said on Tuesday, it was necessary to obtain the co-operation of three parties to the rebuilding. One, certainly, was the Government. Another was British Shipbuilders and the suppliers to British Shipbuilders. The third was the work force and Cunard. We secured that co-operation, with the result that the order has been placed in the North-East, and I am very pleased indeed that it has. All the calculations are based on the ship being delivered on time.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Lady will not accept congratulations from me, perhaps she will accept them from Lord Matthews, who certainly believes that there has been a U-turn? Does the right hon. Lady agree that if we cannot build ships in British yards it will not be much use making speeches or having sermons preached about Britannia ruling the waves?

The Prime Minister: The Government played their part, British Shipbuilders reduced its price and Cunard took some increased cost upon itself. That was all very good. However, everything depends upon the delivery date being before the end of August 1984. When the representatives of the TUC came to see me they, and those


who are concerned with the shipbuilding industry, pledged faithfully that they would secure delivery by that time. It is a matter of honour that they do so.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that the aerospace and defence industries will be gathering at Farnborough in a few weeks' time? Will she care to add her voice to those who have made an assessment of the performance of British defence equipment in the Falklands and, indeed, the performance of all those who worked in the industry to sustain our fighting forces?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the excellent performance of the defence equipment in the Falkland Islands campaign and the splendid people who operated that equipment will accrue to our advantage at the Farnborough air show. If I may select one piece of equipment, the performance of the Sea Harriers was outstanding. Not one Sea Harrier was lost in aerial combat.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Lady have time today to discuss with her ministerial colleagues the Government's proposals to set aside the fair wages clauses in the 1946 fair wages resolution relating to Government contracts? The proposals have been shamefully tucked away in a written answer just before the recess. Does the right hon. Lady recognise that this is a potential return to slave labour for Government contracts and a return to the eighteenth century, from which we thought we had emerged a long time ago?

The Prime Minister: My reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman is "absolute nonsense". Nearly all the claims made under the fair wages resolution are made by unions on behalf of relatively well-paid members. The resolution has little, if any, relevance to the issues of low pay. The Government have scrupulously observed their international treaty obligations and will continue to do so. Some of our major competitor countries—some of whom have well-paid employees—never ratified that convention, including the United States, West Germany, Canada and the entire Eastern bloc.

Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend take time before she goes on her well-earned holiday to remind the Health Service workers that they have security of employment, unlike many other people? Does she recall the words of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) that one man's wage rise could be another man's job loss?

The Prime Minister: It is quite true that, working within cash limits, as we must, the more that is taken out in wages, the more jobs will be lost. The extra wages have to come from the total budget and there is loss of equipment, which means the loss of jobs for others. I agree with my hon. Friend that the National Health Service workers and many, not all, public sector workers, enjoy security of tenure. The offer to the National Health Service workers is a final offer and I hope that they will accept it.

Mr. Conlon: In view of the American resistance to the invitation of British Steel and the Prime Minister's appeal on Tuesday to Cunard to display patriotism, will the right hon. Lady today discuss with the Home Secretary why his

Department is ordering a £1 million antenna from an American company when the work can be done here, to specification and at the right price? Is she aware that this would immediately save 40 jobs at Marconi in Gateshead and probably secure this high technology industry for Britian?

The Prime Minister: I shall, of course, draw those facts to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am not familiar with any rival arguments that there may be. I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend. The position of British Steel in relation to the United States is extremely serious for the industry. The United States had not agreed to negotiate with us on a bilateral basis and we are, therefore, pursuing the matter vigorously through our membership of the European Community.

Mr. McQuarrie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a common fisheries policy has not yet been agreed, despite strenuous efforts? If there is no agreement by 31 December this year, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no sell-out of the British fishing industry and that the Government have a contingency plan to save the industry?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If there is no agreement by the end of this year the position will be serious. We have, of course, made vigorous representations that the present arrangements should continue until we reach an agreement. I hope that we shall make much more progress in September, if not reach agreement, which would be better. The only country that is holding out against the agreement is Denmark.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Prime Minister give further consideration to the measures announced early this week concerning the long-term unemployed? Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that the number of long-term unemployed is the most important indicator of the state of the economy? Does she realise that measures such as job-sharing, hire purchase arrangements and an increase in the number of enterprise zones are not only incompetent but dishonest in dealing with this problem? Why does not the right hon. Lady have the guts to admit that her policies have proved wrong and say that she will now embark on a controlled, selective reflation of the economy?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman voices a fundamental fallacy. He thinks that a Government can control the demand for the volume of goods and services bought from British industry. No Government can possibly do that. A Government can only control—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is mouthing rubbish from a sedentary position. May I reciprocate the remark?
The only thing that the Government can do is to control the volume of money in the economy. How much of that money goes to increased prices, how much to increased imports and how much to purchasing more goods at home depends upon the population of Britain. In the decade from the 1970s to the 1980s, of every £100 of extra money in the economy, £95 went either to increased prices or to increased imports and only £5 went to increased output.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the first week after the recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for the first week after the Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 OcToBER—Remaining stages of the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill[Lords].
Second Reading of the Insurance Companies Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
TUESDAY 19 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords].
Motion on the code of guidance on sites of special scientific interest.
WEDNESDAY 20 OCTOBER—Debate on a subject to be chosen by the Opposition.
Motion on the Driving Licences (Community Driving Licence) Regulations.
THURSDAY 21 OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill.
Remaining stages of the Insurance Companies Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Extension) Order.
FRIDAY 22 OCTOBER—A debate on the report of the Scott Committee of Inquiry into the value of pensions, Cmnd No. 8147, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may also be asked to consider other business as necessary and it is expected that the new Session will be opened on Wednesday 3 November.

Mr. Foot: On previous occasions I have asked for a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy about the sale of BNOC assests. A statement was made on Monday. May we have an extension of that statement to ensure that no action will be taken by the Government without a statement and a debate?
Replies by the Prime Minister show how necessary it is to have still further debates on unemployment. In recent weeks the Government have refused to provide the time for such a debate. We supplied the time this week. I hope that the Government will supply time for a debate before long because before we return two further unemployment figures will have been issued showing further increases in unemployment.

Mr. Biffen: I note what the Leader of the Opposition says about a debate on unemployment after we return from the recess. He will appreciate that our return is but a span which is under the shadow of the Queen's Speech. Such matters will be central to our debate on the Queen's Speech.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy explained to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) the technical problems which prevented the laying of directions covering the ultimate disposal of British Gas Corporation assets before the recess. No irrevocable steps on the disposal of the British Gas Corporation's offshore oil assests will be taken before right hon. and hon. Members have had an opportunity to debate them.

Mr. David Steel: The Leader of the House undertook last week to see whether it was possible to have a debate and vote on the student

grants prayer. That topic will come up on the debate on the Consolidated Fund, but there will be no opportunity for a vote. Will the Leader of the House honour his undertaking?

Mr. Biffen: Yes. I have examined the problem and I am anxious to accommodate the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we can arrange through the usual channels for the issue to be debated upstairs.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will it be convenient in the week that we return for the Government to make a statement not only on Lord Belstead's recent visit to Gibraltar but on any other visits made to Gibraltar by Ministers, particularly in relation to the commercialisation of the dockyard?

Mr. Biffen: No arrangement has been made for such a debate in the first week after the recess, but there are plenty of opportunities for raising the matter through the facilities available to Back Benchers.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As we know from experience that the Government will make unpleasant statements as soon as the House rises for the recess, and since we cannot debate such matters in the first week after the recess, will the Leader of the House arrange for Ministers to make all their unpleasant statements tomorrow?

Mr. Biffen: That would be a dangerous innovation.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision at last to debate the Scott report on Friday 22 October is welcome? Will he ensure that the relevant Minister makes clear to the House the Government's broad response to the Megaw report since the two matters should be considered together?

Mr. Biffen: Yes. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He will acknowledge that the Government have an obligation to undertake widespread consultations on the Megaw report outside the House. I am sure that it will be possible to meet my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House look at page 3777, item 20, of the Order Paper which asks that the Scottish Grand Committee should meet in Edinburgh during the recess to discuss the Hunter report? We understand that urgent action is required, possibly tomorrow, if that is to be facilitated. Because of the widespread interest and the need for Scottish Members to comment on that issue of privilege, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to take action in the House tomorrow?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly examine item 20, as requested. The hon. Gentleman will concede that his request involves an important innovation and that therefore I cannot guarantee that I shall answer in a way which is helpful. None the less, I shall consider the matter.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I assume that the Leader of the House is not willing to give way to that important innovation. Is it not strange that the Hunter report is not scheduled for debate in the first week after the recess?

Mr. Biffen: Many items of business jostle for inclusion on the agenda. I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend is disappointed at the absence of a debate on the Hunter report. He must not assume that its absence downgrades the importance attached by the Government to the issue.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Before 18 October the Government will have time to examine the decision in the Helen Smith case. An appeal is to be made against the decision to refuse to hold a coroner's inquest. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that has caused widespread repercussions and a feeling that there has been a cover-up by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? A statement would help to clarify the position. May we have a statement in the week commencing 18 October?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw that request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. David Crouch: Will we be sitting in the last week of October?

Mr. Biffen: I think that the business will extend beyond the week that I have mentioned.

Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Leader of the House realise that there has been a great deal of strong feeling on both sides of the House in support of the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas)? Does he accept that the motion does not ask for a revolutionary change and that it would allow Scottish Members the opportunity of an early debate on the vital Hunter report, which is a subject of great controversy in Scotland? Will he give urgent consideration to this matter which is worrying members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Biffen: The proposal may not be revolutionary but it is certainly controversial.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: Reverting to the proposed debate on the Scott report on Friday 22 October, dare we hope that, after all the time that has elapsed since the publication of the report, the basis debate will not be a "take note" motion but rather a definitive statement of the Government's policy?

Mr. Biffen: It will take place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the Leader of the House look again at motion No. 20 concerning the Scottish Grand Committee. Was he not being unnecessarily negative? He says that it is controversial, but if he examines yesterday's Hansard he will realise that there was strong support for the motion on both sides of the House. It is crucial that we should be allowed to debate the matter under the proper rules and privileges of the House. It is not controversial and it would be an innovation, but greater innovations have occurred when the House has been recalled—and it was recalled in April this year. Is there any reason why one Committee of the House should not be recalled? Is it not true that Select Committees can meet in the recess? The innovation is not as great as he suggests, but the demand for it is very great indeed.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has made his case and I take note of it. I have told the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) that I will examine the matter, and, of course, I shall do so.

Mr. Harry Greenway: In view of the evidently successful devolution of the Scottish Grand Committee to Edinburgh, may we have an early debate on the desirability of devolving Scottish Question Time to

Edinburgh and the substitution therefor of a Question Time for London, bearing in mind that Scotland has 71 Members and London has 92 Members?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend's point demonstrates the momentous implications once one gets into the area of a Committee meeting in Edinburgh.

Mr. Donald Dewar: We are grateful for the fact that the Leader of the House has said that he will consider motion No. 20. Will he accept that innovation is not necessarily a sin, even in Leaders of the House? Does he not accept that a discussion of the Hunter report in the House would be peculiarly appropriate because of the nature of the report and the subjects with which it deals? It is quite unsatisfactory that there should be no prospect of doing so until October or November, given that the report is to be published next week. Does he accept that there is a strong feeling that the matter has been handled with little competence and some insensitivity, and that by acting quickly tomorrow to facilitate a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee he can do something to put that right?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I cannot sensibly add to the very original answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Dunfermline.

Sir William Clark: While welcoming the fact that we are to have a debate on the Scott report which has been before the House for a long time, and in view of the great public interest in index-linked pensions, will my right hon. Friend tell the House why the debate is to be on the Adjournment of the House and why it is to be on a Friday?

Mr. Biffen: Many important debates take place on a Friday and, indeed, many important debates are taken on the Adjournment of the House. This will enable there to be a wide-ranging debate and it will enable the Government sensibly to assess the temperature of the House on this issue.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Unless there is a marked relief of the anxiety that is now facing the British steel industry, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that there will be a debate immediately after the House resumes? Has he taken note of early-day motion 639?
[That this House views with revulsion the manufacture in this country of weapons which administer electric shocks and which are very likely to be used for purposes of torture; deplores the sale of this equipment to regions which demonstrate a marked indifference to human rights; and, further, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that such equipment, which is described in both English and Spanish as "ideal for use in penal institutions" in the brochure provided by the manufacturer, is not promoted or displayed at exhibitions or presentations arranged or sponsored by public authorities.]
In the interests of international decency and Government consistency, may we have an expression of disapproval of the manufacture of instruments of torture in this country?

Mr. Biffen: I note the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to his point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman speaks with support throughout the Chamber.
With regard to the question of a debate on the steel industry, the week we return will be devoted substantially to finalising important legislation. But I am certain that following the Queen's Speech there will be an opportunity to debate the issues that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. John Peyton: Will my right hon. Friend consider again the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) about index-linked pensions? Is he aware that the Government's plan to debate the subject on a Friday on a motion for the Adjournment of the House carries the implication that the Government regard this as an extremely hot potato and that it is a subject that they would not wish to have debated on a positive motion or when there are many hon. Members present?

Mr. Biffen: No. It is perfectly reasonable that such a topic should be debated on a Friday. If by some happy circumstance one could have five Wednesdays in a week, that would be much easier for the managers of Government business. Friday is an available day and I am certain that all those who are committed to the subject will find it opportune to be here to lend their voices to the debate.

Mr. Greville Janner: When will the House have an opportunity to debate the plight of the 15,000 United Kingdom passport holders who are entitled to settle in this country and the 5,000 available vouchers which are never taken up and which the Government refuse to reallocate? As the system lacks sense and compassion and causes unnecessary hardship, not least to the Asian community in Leicester, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary whether he will make a statement on this matter and try to act decently towards these suffering people?

Mr. Biffen: I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's description of the position. I will consult my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as he requests.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the quality of the Gracious Speech will not necessarily depend on the number of legislative threats and promises that it contains?

Mr. Biffen: Absolutely.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Have the Government, through the Prime Minister, sent a message of congratulation to the Archibishop of Canterbury on his memorable and meaningful sermon at St. Paul's on the need for peace and reconciliation? Will the right hon. Gentleman deny the report that the husband of the Prime Minister said that she was "spitting blood" after the service?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is not so naive that he believes all that he reads.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend confirm or deny that a new Representation of the People Bill is being prepared in line with and to correspond to the new British Nationality Act?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will not have to wait long for the Queen's Speech. He should not tempt me or anybody else.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Following the British Nationality Act 1981, when are the new draft immigration rules likely to be published?

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry, but I cannot answer that question. I shall make inquiries and ensure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is informed.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Now that the long-awaited Select Committee on Transport's report on London Transport has been published, for whose publication the Government delayed any action that they intended to take to put matters right, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, as soon as the House returns after the recess, the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement about the Government's intentions? Even better, will the Government find time to debate this crucial issue because, in the meantime, Londoners are paying through the nose for an ever-declining service under the jurisdiction of the GLC which is almost universally mistrusted?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will appreciate from my announcement that no provision has been made for a debate during the first week back, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to his point about the desirability of a statement.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend read this morning that, after about a year of costly and disruptive legal procedures and court actions, the EEC has finally agreed to the Berisford-British Sugar takeover, which is the same decision that he and the Office of Fair Trading took about a year ago? Would it be possible in the spill-over period after the recess to have even half a day of Government time to discuss the real dangers to British jobs, British investment and major British firms from having a second court of appeal established on essential takeovers, mergers and bids?

Mr. Biffen: I have not read the newspaper report to which my hon. Friend refers. Clearly there is no provision for a debate upon the topic that he has raised in the first week following our return after the Summer Recess. However, I have such respect for my hon. Friend that I know perfectly well that the issue will obtrude on to the Floor of the House by one means or another.

Mr. John Silkin: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that, in replying to the short, simple, identical and doubtless unsolicited question for written reply which the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) addressed to the Secretaries of State for Trade, Energy and Wales, each right hon. Gentleman has given in Hansard four or five columns of tedious self-justification? If they must do this, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in future they do it by oral statements so that we may cross-examine them?

Mr. Biffen: If the answers were tedious, it is possible that they were not all that self-justifying. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) has done no more than has been done on many occasions in the past. Clearly many Departments of State have very good stories to tell and are anxious to have them placed upon the record. It is about as innocent as that.

Mr. John Silkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that we should adopt the revolting European habit of writing speeches into the record? Surely Ministers should be cross-examined in the House.

Mr. Biffen: No, but I am well aware that the opportunity for Departments to place items upon the record in the written answers columns that they believe to be advantageous to policy is long established.

Mr. Latham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is wise, he will leave the matter to his right hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of Bills of aids and supplies, more than one stage of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting.—Mr. David Hunt.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on Motions 2 to 4 on the Order Paper.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the Industrial Training (Clothing and Allied Products Board) Order 1969 (Amendment) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 920) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Industrial Training (Offshore Petroleum Board) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 921) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp; c.
That the Industrial Training (Plastics Processing Board) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 923) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp; c.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Question agreed to.

Sir Peter Thorne

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That this House acknowledges the exemplary manner in which Sir Peter Francis Thorne, KCVO, CBE, has discharged the duties of the Office of Serjeant at Arms, expresses its gratitude for his devoted service to the House and extends to him its best wishes for his retirement.
Sir Peter Thorne has been in the service of the House since 1948. He was Deputy Serjeant at Arms for 19 years and he has been Serjeant at Arms since 1976. Throughout that time he has upheld with the greatest distinction the best traditions of his office. The many private tributes which have already been paid to him on his impending retirement have shown the universal regard and affection in which he is held by all the Departments of the House and throughout the Palace of Westminster.
Today's motion enables hon. Members to give formal and public expression to the deep gratitude that is felt on both sides of the House for the work that he has done. During his years of office, Sir Peter, aided by a remarkable memory, has built up an unrivalled knowledge of every aspect of the work of his Department. He has used his literary skill and authority to put at least some of this experience and historical research on record for the guidance of his successors. This knowledge has always been applied in the most practical way to the day-to-day problems of the House.
Accommodation in the House is not always all that many hon. Members would wish. That it is as good as it is owes a great deal to the personal energies and ingenuity of the Serjeant at Arms. More sombrely, hazards to security have greatly added to the responsibilities of the Serjeant at Arms in recent years.
Whenever threats have arisen, Sir Peter has always been found at the point of danger, every ready to apply his experience and versatility and to take the lead in finding practical solutions. He has carried out his many responsibilities here with dignity, self-effacing courtesy and unfailing kindness.
On behalf of the House, I express our profound gratitude and affectionate best wishes for the future to Sir Peter and Lady Anne, and extend a very warm welcome to his successor, Major Victor Le Fanu.

Mr. Michael Foot: I believe that it has sometimes been the custom for motions of this character thanking the Serjeant at Arms for his services to be signed by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. On this occasion a number of other names appear on the Order Paper. I have been asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) to add their congratulations to those which have been offered by the Leader of the House and which I wish to offer on behalf of the official Opposition, and I am glad to do so.
We are glad to agree with the motion that the Leader of the House has placed on the Order Paper. The services of Sir Peter Thorne have been of an exceptional character. All of us in many different parts of the House can pay our own individual tribute to the courtesy, kindness, consideration and unfailing persistence with which he has performed his duties in the House.
The Leader of the House has referred to the exceptional circumstances in some respects that have prevailed over recent years. Sir Peter has contributed to the convenience of hon. Members and to their safety. It is of very great importance that the safety of hon. Members should not interfere with the proper conduct of our business in every way. That takes considerable provision and forethought and has involved the anxiety of the officials and servants of the House. We all discover very soon after our arrival in this place that without the servants of the House it would be impossible for hon. Members to discharge their duties properly. All who have known him will say that the House has never had a more faithful servant than Sir Peter Thorne. The Opposition are glad to support the motion.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends in both the Social Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, I wish to add our words of appreciation for what Sir Peter Thorne has done. I do so with particular pleasure because it so happens that Colonel Thorne, as he then was, arrived as Assistant Serjeant at Arms in 1948 within a very few months of my first arrival in the House. Over the years he has occupied a more permanent seat than myself, especially in the past few months, and he has occupied it consistently in a way that has benefited enormously the service of the House. He has done this and discharged his other duties with a unique combination of courtesy, efficiency, friendliness, and distinction. We thank him warmly, and we wish him well for the future.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I think that I am the only ranker present who was in this place before Colonel Thorne arrived as Assistant Serjeant at Arms. I have been pleased to know him personally. It is unusual for rankers to get the opportunities that are enjoyed by military officers. Being a military man before he came here—once a military man always a military man—I think that Colonel Thorne will welcome a word of appreciation from the rankers, the Back Benchers. We do not often have the privileges that are extended to Privy Councillors, who walk in to make their speeches, walk out and never make a reappearance. There are one or two honourable exceptions, and I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is in his place.
I have known previous Serjeants at Arms and I am able to make comparisons. Colonel Thorne, as I always refer to him, was always kind, courteous and helpful, especially to Back Benchers. With great respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I am not much concerned about Privy Councillors—they are well looked after—but Colonel Thorne treated each Member of the House alike. If one went to him and he could not do something immediately, he would go out of his way to do it. Often he failed because of the non-co-operation of the Establishment, and especially of hon. Members. He innovated the excellent precept of reserving car park spaces for disabled persons, but many hon. Members ignored that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, and then they came to the House and made speeches about helping the stricken and the disabled and said that we should all go out of our way to help them. Then we find their cars parked in spaces reserved for the disabled. Colonel Thorne tried to put right such matters.
I have never known Colonel Thorne to lose his temper—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has provoked him enough.

Mr. Lewis: I accept that I am not a "Yes" man. I will have a go at anyone, as I probably have at Colonel Thorne, but there are no hard feelings on my part and I know that there are none on his. As an hon. Member who will also retire one day—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—may I say to Colonel Thorne, who I hope is listening in his reserved box upstairs, that I hope that he has a long retirement and that we can both discuss, being of the same retirement age, the comments that I have made on behalf of all Back Benchers. I speak now as the most senior other ranker present.

Mr. Speaker: Before I put the Question, I beg leave of the House to make a statement on behalf of the Deputy Speakers and myself.
I have never heard warmer and more sincere tributes paid to a servant of this House than those to which we have just listened. It has been a great privilege for those of us in the Chair to work with Colonel Sir Peter Thorne, who has been a friend to us, who has shown loyalty and who has never complained at any duty that he has been invited to undertake. The House is the richer for his having served among us, and we wish him well.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House acknowledges the exemplary manner in which Sir Peter Francis Thorne, KCVO, CBE, has discharged the duties of the Office of Serjeant at Arms, expresses its gratitude for his devoted service to the House and extends to him its best wishes for his retirement.

Mr. Speaker: May I say to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) that it would be a great favour to me if someone would make him a Privy Councillor!

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at its rising on Friday 30th July, this House do adjourn till Monday 18th October and shall not adjourn until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Appropriation Act and to any other Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you selected the amendment in my name?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and sorry to disappoint him. The answer is in the negative. I did not select the amendment, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be fortunate enough to catch the eye of whoever occupies the Chair and can advance his views.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wish to raise with the Leader of the House a matter of which I hope I have given him adequate notice. The matter affects affairs during the prospective adjournment of the House that should be taken into account before the House rises. It concerns the administration of justice in Northern Ireland, especially the administration of the county courts. That administration is the responsibility of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, and in Northern Ireland we have been conscious of the personal interest of both those Law Officers in their duties in Northern Ireland.
To mention courts of law in Northern Ireland brings to mind criminal justice, but promptitude and efficiency in the administration of civil justice is no less a requirement than in the administration of criminal justice. In Northern Ireland, any delay in the administration of the law and any impediment to the citizen in obtaining redress is a proper cause for anxiety.
By an order that came into force on 1 June, the jurisdiction of the county courts—the limit of the value of cases brought before county courts in that province—was increased in line with similar increases affecting the county courts in England and Wales. However, although the order for England and Wales was debatable and was debated in another place, under the present constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland we have not been able to debate the implications of that extension of jurisdiction of the county courts.
Such is the pressure upon the county courts and such are the physical difficulties faced by those who work in them, that, whereas an order of the High Court can be obtained by the litigant's solicitors from the appropriate office within a few days, in the county courts—some of the poorest people and those in the greatest difficulty have recourse to the county courts—especially in Belfast, which covers the main areas of population in the Province, it usually takes five weeks from the date that the court gives its judgment for the order to be corrected. That statistic, which refers to the period before the increased jurisdiction, cannot be acceptable or satisfactory. The pressure will be increased abnormally by the increase in the jurisdiction.
In England and Wales it was estimated by those commending the extension of the jurisdiction that it should be about 3 per cent. this year. The minimum such estimate that has been made for Northern Ireland is 9 per cent. Arguments that have been advanced in a most detailed and logical manner by the Law Society and the Belfast Solicitors' Association, show that it is much more likely to be about 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. That is based upon


an analysis of the value of the cases that have come before the High Court in recent years and which, under the extension of jurisdiction, are likely to be moved to the county courts.
It is one thing to preach lightly so minuscule an increase in burden as that anticipated in England and Wales, but when one is to place, at any rate a 10 per cent., and those best qualified believe a 25 per cent., increase in burden upon the already overburdened county courts of the Province, then those who represent Northern Ireland are entitled to remonstrate and to ask that certain undertakings be given by the Government before the House rises.
The undertaking that I have in mind is that the deficiencies, both of staff and equipment, which even before the extension of the jurisdiction were imposing unacceptable delays and inefficiencies in the administration of justice, will be swiftly removed in the next few months. Had we had the opportunity to make these representations on the Floor of the House before the enactment took place, we would have sought an assurance that the order would be implemented only pari passu with the increase in the facilities. I believe that that is technically impossible now that the order has come into effect on 1 June.
Shortly before that debate, in a written answer on 27 May from the Solicitor-General I was told that:
I am assured that there are sufficient premises and staff to cope with this increase when it"—
I think "it" means the order—
comes into effect on 1 June."—[Official Report, 27 May 1982; Vol. 24, c. 371.]
With the greatest respect to the Solicitor-General, he is misinformed. Indeed, the figures that I have already given to the House show both the fact and the extent of the misinformation which must underlie such an assurance as was given to him. The assurance that I therefore seek through the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House I shall put in a different form.
It is that without delay, and in no circumstances as late as the resumption of the House, the Law Officers of the Crown will urgently assess the deficiencies in the county courts of Northern Ireland, both in terms of staff, that is the judiciary and the assistants of the judiciary, and the physical equipment of the courts, and will make a public statement as to the speed with which they expect to remove them.
I venture to say that neither the legal profession nor the laity in Northern Ireland ought to rest satisfied with the previous level of delay in the administration of justice. They should expect some indication from the Law Officers responsible for that administration that within the next three months those deficiencies will be removed so that those who, as a result of this extension of the jurisdiction, will take their cases—and there are advantages in doing so—to the county court instead of the High Court, can look for no less prompt satisfaction of their claims than they would have obtained under the High Court procedure.
Unless that can be assured, it is a mockery to seek to assist litigants by increasing the jurisdiction of the county courts. Therefore, I trust that the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Law Officers of the Crown, will be able to recognise the unacceptable circumstances to which I have drawn his attention. I trust that he will undertake that they will be of immediate concern and the subject of an inquiry of the Law Officers, and that within the next three months we in Northern Ireland shall have reason, in terms of a

statement by Law Officers, to anticipate a dramatic improvement in the efficiency of the administration of the civil law in the civil courts.
As I said at the outset, one is dealing here with the civil jurisdiction, but it would be rather absurd for an hon. Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency, in raising a question affecting civil jurisdiction, not to draw attention to the fact that still, despite proposals for the extension and improvement of the existing courts, the physical circumstances under which the criminal law is administered in Northern Ireland are in many places completely unacceptable and would be found shocking by hon. Members if they were to visit those courts.
I add that lest anyone here or elsewhere should assume that by raising a matter that affects civil jurisdiction I was in any way implying satisfaction on the part of my hon. Friends or myself with the circumstances in which physically the criminal law is administered in Northern Ireland. I trust that that point too, although one familiar to the Law Officers of the Crown, will reach their ears, once again and loudly, through the mouth of the Leader of the House.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: Before the House rises for the Summer Recess some consideration should be given to what to do with those who commit terrorist offences. The crimes that were committed in London just last week are too vile to bear mention, and I cannot help but wonder at the mentality of those wo can plant bombs in the way that those people did. They put bombs under a bandstand at lunchtime when a concert was about to take place and when innocent children could have been there. They planted a bomb filled with nails and watched the Blues and Royals ride through Hyde Park and draw near to it before exploding it. Those people must have the minds of sadists to do such terrible things.
I am thankful that I was not in that area, as some hon. Members were, to witness those terrible scenes. We did not pay sufficient tribute to the enormous amount of work that was done to help, particularly by the police. I feel sad that certain Liberal Members chose that same day to attack the police. If those hon. Members have evidence of corruption in the Metropolitan Police, their remedy is to send evidence to the Attorney-General or the Director of Pulblic Prosecutions. The necessary investigations could then take place. To make the bland charges that they made and to blacken the reputations of a large number of innocent members of the Metropolitan Police Force is not fair play.
The terrorist incidents last week caused tremendous shock in this country, and there was a universal call that the people responsible for these events must be caught and brought to justice. I quote part of a letter in the Daily Mail on 26 July from a lady who lives in St. Leonards on Sea. She says:
Before the expressions of rage and horror die down, and complacency becomes the order of the day again, can someone please answer a few questions for ordinary folk like me?
Why are so few IRA terrorists brought to public justice? Why are they apparently allowed to parade through the streets, and fire tributes to their dead members at funerals.
And why are we so eager to fight injustices and tyranny in the Falklands (and quite rightly so) and yet are so ineffective against the enermy within?
I realise that the Northern Ireland question is a very complex matter and difficult for we lay people to understand. What we do notice, however, is the pride wth which the IRA claim


responsibility for their atrocities andthe number of innocent bystanders and the families of policemen and soldiers who suffer at their hands.
Such points have been repeated over and over again by millions of our people.
It is because of this that we have to think seriously of what to do to those who are found guilty of terrorist offences. I realise that on several occasions the House has overwhelmingly rejected the idea of reintroducingthe death penalty. However, before we leave for the Summer Recess we should have some chance to discuss that vexed question again. There are a number of reasons why I believe that the death penalty should be brought back as a deterrent.
First, life imprisonment does not seem to have deterred the terrorists. The risk of being put in prison for the rest of their lives does not stop them planting bombs. No doubt they hope that one day there will be a political solution in Ireland, and that they would then get an amnesty because they would be regarded as political prisoners. Secondly, capital punishment would be a deterrent, and, as a consequence, innocent lives would be saved. Thirdly, I believe that the overwhelming majority in this country are in favour of capital punishment for those found guilty of murder by terrorist activity. People generally are becoming increasingly cynical because they think that hon. Members are completely out of touch with their views and that we ignore their wishes.
I am sure that even the strongest abolitionist in the House would not deny that a referendum would show overwhelming support for the restoration of capital punishment. I do not see why hon. Members should feel that we know better than the people whom we represent how to cope with the terrorist threat. The IRA itself realises that capital punishment is a deterrent. As Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, the eminent Victorian lawyer and writer on legal history stated,
No other punishment deters men so effectually from committing crimes as the punishment of death".
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said in a previous debate, the IRA believes in capital punishment. It uses capital punishment for those who renege on it. It would follow, therefore, that if capital punishment were restored for terrorist offences, it would deter some IRA supporters. The IRA thrives on the fact that it can put fear and terror into the hearts of many people. As a consequence, many of its members are shielded. Is it not likely that the security forces would get more information about the whereabouts of IRA activists if people realised that they had just as much to fear from the State as from the IRA?
The outrages in London on 20 July shocked the world. I hope that the Irish Americans who give money to Noraid now see clearly how that money was spent. I only hope that the shock of knowing that six inch nails were exploded into the bodies of helpless men, women and animals will mean the drying up of financial aid for the IRA from the United States. The monsters responsible for those crimes boast about it, and do it in the name of a united Ireland.
I am Irish. My grandparents were all Irish. On one side they were Northern Irish Protestant Orange, and on the other they were Southern Irish Catholics. It is a terrible mixture, and perhaps that explains a great deal. As a child,

I saw the tremendous bitterness that religion caused between different members of my family. It taught me one thing: never to argue anybody's religion.
As one of Irish descent, I cannot help wondering why the citizens of Eire who come to this country are given preferential treatment. They can come and go as they please, free of immigration controls. They have the same rights as citizens of the United Kingdom to our social services and the National Health Service and—surprise, surprise—they can also vote in our parliamentary elections. If there were reciprocal agreements, and if citizens of the United Kingdom who live in Eire could vote in parliamentary elections there, and take the benefits of their social services, I could see some justice in the arrangement, but that is not so. It is entirely a one-way traffic. That should be examined seriously because the latest terrorist attacks have sparked a mood of resentment in this country.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the hon. Member checked his facts? Both Eire and Britain are members of the EEC, and I understand that the EEC had stipulated that any resident of an EEC country must receive the same social services as he obtains in his own country. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Certainly, the French, the Germans and the Italians who come here are entitled to our social services under the EEC rule. I should have thought that Eire should reciprocate under the EEC regulations, even if it does not do it by an arrangement with Great Britain.

Mr. Montgomery: I think that that is done by individual agreement, but certainly the citizens of France, Western Germany and other members of the EEC cannot vote in our parliamentary elections. That is what I am saying.
The latest terrorist attacks have sparked a great mood of resentment in this country. People feel that those privileges should be stopped and that the citizens of Eire should be treated exactly the same as our other European neighbours. Certainly, we did not get much support from the Prime Minister of Eire during the recent conflict in the South Atlantic. In truth, not only did Mr. Haughey not give us much support, but he could not put the boot in quickly enough. I remind my right hon. Friend that one of the problems facing our security forces in Northern Ireland is that IRA terrorists come and go across the border with impunity.
My hon. Friend will also realise that British courts cannot touch the terrorists, because the Dublin Government regard them as political offenders. As a consequence, they are safe from extradition. I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that the time has now come to deal with these privileges which have existed for many years for what have been termed by respective Ministers in successive Administrations historical reasons. I very much hope that I can have an answer to the matters that I have raised before we rise for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I want to raise certain matters, primarily about immigration—of which I have given notice to the Leader of the House—as matters that should be looked at before the House rises.
The Summer Recess, generally speaking, gives rise to certain difficulties for a number of people who, often for


legitimate reasons, wish to visit this country, seek admission here, and are confronted by peremptory refusal by immigration officers. Such people, particularly during this long recess, often find it virtually impossible to make representations through Members of Parliament, even when the visit is likely to be of short duration and the application is refused at the point of entry. Members of Parliament, particularly during this recess, may be difficult to contact. People who come here may not be aware that they can make such representations and that help is available in that way. There must be a better system for dealing with such matters, because adverse decisions can often have devastating effects on the people concerned, who, perhaps, are prevented from meeting relatives whom they have not seen for a long time, even when there are compassionate circumstances, because the immigration officer does not believe the person seeking admission.
The situation is made far worse because there is a lack of a coherent policy in the Home Office for dealing with people from countries such as Iran. Alone among all the EEC countries, we appear to be adopting a far more inflexible policy to people from Iran who seek to remain in this country and who, by any reasonably objective standards, would qualify as political refugees. We are talking here of a Government who afford no recognition of the elementary standards of justice that we in this country take for granted. Iran is a country where there are summary executions and where torture is the order of the day. Nevertheless, our Government, at least in their immigration policy, seem to consider that the Iranian Government have a somewhat benign face. Evidently, for that purpose at least, although in some respects they proclaim otherwise, they are unaware or uncaring about the excesses and uncivilised behaviour that mark that Government. People who oppose the fundamentalist views of the Iranian Government face a risk of dire penalty if they are forced to return, although, of course, some cases are not so extreme.
During the recent debate on immigration, I drew attention to a constituency case of a young Iranian woman who had studied architecture in Britain. She had become used to the modern standards that apply in Britain and which are completely foreign to those currently applying in Iran. For her to be forced to return to Iran was unacceptable and even abhorrent. Yet, it was the Minister's decision that she should return. It so happens that she was saved from that fate because she married a British citizen, but the issue of principle was not faced by the Minister.
It is unacceptable that all too often the burden of proof of establishing that a person resident here and seeking to remain here would, in such circumstances, be exposed to the treatment to which I have alluded—harassment and punishment—should fall upon them. Such persons must establish that those penalties would necessarily befall them. That burden of proof is exceptionally difficult to discharge in individual cases. It may be too late when they are forced to return and those penalties befall them and the trap is sprung.
I regret that the Minister's views about this subject are so painfully inadequate. It is incumbent upon the Home Office to review its policies in this respect as a matter of great urgency. During the debate on immigration on 28 June 1982, in reply to my question about Poland, the Minister said:

In the prevailing circumstances, we are not returning people to Poland."—[Official Report, 28 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 690.]
Hon. Members would generally agree that the activities of the Polish Government are, in many respects, wholly unacceptable. There are serious breaches of human rights, but they are not in the same league of horror and abomination as exists in Iran today.
Why should such a distinction be drawn? Why not extend the same policy to Iranians? The Government should not place such people in such appalling jeopardy. The benefit of the doubt should be given to them and we should do exactly the same as we have done in regard to Poland.
I turn from that to an issue affecting South Africans—primarily white South Africans—some of whom feel that because of the racist nature of our immigration laws there must be some white victims to establish the Government's credentials in purporting not to apply racist standards in the operation of our immigration laws. Many South Africans seek permanent residence in Britain because they abhor the concept of apartheid and find the idea of returning to South Africa as utterly unacceptable as did the Iranian lady who faced being made to return to Iran. Here again, the Home Office appears to have no coherent policy.
We should not apply a strict, inflexible view to matters, almost, of political asylum. We should broaden the considerations and criteria that apply. That is particularly true of young South Africans who find abhorrent the idea of having to serve in the South African Services, perhaps being made to serve in Namibia, or Angola, making incursions of hundreds of miles, perhaps playing some part in suppressing human rights in South Africa. Those views should be taken proper account of.
However, in a case which I dealt with professionally rather than as a constituency matter, the Minister wrote to me through a Member of Parliament on 13 January, saying, in relation to young South Africans,
We are currently reviewing cases involving South African nationals who wish to remain in the United Kingdom in order to evade military service in their own country.
On 12 July he wrote to say that
This review has been completed, but I regret to inform you that the particular young South African has to return.
Is that fair? Is it equitable? Does it accord with the standards of justice that we think should be applied in Britain? Should not we apply a far broader concept in relation to our immigration policies in that regard?
Finally, I turn to an unrelated but important matter that was partially raised during Prime Minister's questions today. It relates to the need to ensure that the British shipbuilding industry can flourish if orders do not go abroad. What steps are the Government taking as a matter of urgency to confer with the shipowners, through the General Council of British Shipping, about flagging out? In other words, what steps are being taken about the avoidance of responsibilities that should be applied internationally to ensure that there are decent standards of employment and that ship-owners do not escape their obligations?
Recently several of our merchant vessels went to the Falkland Islands. The National Union of Seamen gave unstintingly in its efforts then. All sorts of tributes were paid at that time. How lasting will those tributes be? If some of the British shipowners had had their way, if the National Union of Seamen and the Merchant Navy and Air Line Officers Association and other shipping unions, had


not fought against flagging out on the part of some of the owners of vessels that went to the Falkland Islands, they would not have been able to sail.
If the Minister were to say that we can always repatriate the vessels in time of emergency—there may be such an agreement but I do not think that it would always apply because seafarers cannot be repatriated—it must be remembered that one of the corollaries of flagging out is that decent standards are abandoned in the seafaring community and there will not be a seafaring community worth its name in a few years' time. That has been found to be the case in the United States of America. THerefore, faced with such a crisis again, we might not be able to crew the necessary vessels.
That is an extremely dangerous situation. I see no evidence that the Government have thought positively about that dangerous state of affairs. If there is to be a credible defence policy, one cannot apply the standards of the market economy to a vital branch of that defence strategy. Yet it is that market economy to which the Government seem to be totally wedded, however irrelevant it may be.
I urge the Government to think seriously and positively about our Merchant Service. It must be recognised that those concepts cannot be applied because they would inevitably weaken the contribution that the Merchant Service can make. I hope that the Leader of the House will assure hon. Members that the Government are giving those matters urgent attention. If they do not, grave damage will be done to the whole fabric of Britain's defence strategy.

Mr. John Stokes: We should not adjourn for the long Summer Recess until we have debated the state of the police forces in this country. However, before coming to that subject I wish to mention briefly another topic that I spoke about this time last year. I refer to the condition of the Church of England and other Churches in Britain. I know that this subject worries many hon. Members. The controversy that unfortunately broke out about the content and style of the service on Monday for the Falkland Islands typifies the problem that the House increasingly has to face vis-a-vis the Church.
We are supposed to deal with matters temporal, and the Church with matters spiritual. However, unfortunately many of the bishops and clergy, instead of being concerned with the state of individual souls and fundamental matters such as sin and redemption, seem much more interested in secular subjects such as nuclear disarmament, pacifism and what I would call general welfare matters—that subjects that are so loved by the Liberal intelligentsia. Can one wonder the the churches are emptying as a yawning gap develops between what the clergy think and talk about and what ordinary people believe, and expect the clergy to teach them?
This issue must deeply concern the Synod, but if it fails to deal with the problem it will be our duty to step in, once again.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Stokes: I shall not give way, because many hon. Members wish to speak and interventions will lessen the time available for their speeches. After all, the hon. Gentleman is a frequent contributor to our debates.
As a loyal churchman, this subject is extremely painful to me and so I shall say no more about it now. However, unless there is a change among the bishops and clergy, and unless they return to fundamental truths instead of the more modish, fashionable but temporary phases of thought, the House will have to return to it.
In recent months many people have been concerned about the state of our police force. Therefore, we should certainly debate that subject before the Summer Recess. I do not mean, of course, that we should attack the police. That would be wholly wrong and utterly irresponsible. Nor do I want the police forces in the provinces to come under political control. That would have the most dangerous consequences. However, I wish to propose one fundamental reform: that the police force should introduce a new officer class. I ask hon. Members to consider the difficulties under which the police have laboured in recent years.
Under the Labour Government, as we all know, the police were underpaid and seriously under strength. Many experienced men in the middle ranks left the force. They had to contend with a continual rise in crime and, above all, in crimes of violence. The Old Christian morality and standards were breaking down and in many urban areas, particularly in new towns and on new estates, people seemed rootless and seemed not to know where they belonged in society. Parents were no longer so strict or confident in training their children and the wretched permissive society of the 1960s and 1970s did not help matters. Therefore, the police had to face not only new difficulties, but new problems with immigrants as well as the terrible rioting that was formerly unknown in this country's long history. The police were not helped by the activities of the pro-immigrant lobby, or by some of the statements made by Lord Scarman, who suggested that the police should go easy on the blacks.
The other day I read a complaint from a senior policeman in one of the former riot areas. He said that nowadays a riot could easily be caused by stopping a black to ask him not to ride his bicycle on the pavement or by asking a motorist for his licence. The police can be helped only if the law is applied equally to everyone and if newcomers adopt our standards of conduct and behaviour.
The police record in relation to the continuing menace of terrorism is good. They have also had their successes in dealing with the drug problem. However, incidents such as burglaries and street crime have unfortunately defeated them. The public has a large part to play in assisting the police and those who criticise the police should particularly remember that. Despite its faults, our police force is still the best in the world. The local bobby, who is now increasingly returning to the beat is, in most places, a popular and respected person. Our police are certainly gentler than many foreign police forces. They need all the help that we can give them.
Nevertheless, recent events have been disturbing. The bungling and delays in capturing the Yorkshire Ripper were deplorable. Recent events in Buckingham Palace are almost unbelievable. On hearing about the slackness of Buckingham Palace's resident police I immediately asked myself where the orderly officer was, but of course, there was no such officer.
Corruption in the Metropolitan Police is the most serious problem of all, although I deplore those who exaggerate the possible number of police involved. My next remarks apply both to the Metropolitan Police, with


its own special problems, and the provincial forces. The whole force lacks and needs leadership at every level. That can be properly provided only by introducing a new officer class, properly recruited and trained, starting in a college such as Sandhurst, and on the lines of Her Majesty's Forces. That reform would take several years to have its full effect but it would, at once, change the climate and morale in the whole force. I am well aware that the function of the police service is quite different from that of the Armed Services, but leadership is still required and that leadership has been lacking. The police need the leadership that officers in Her Majesty's Forces give.
Since the end of Lord Trenchard's experiment along those lines before the war, the police force has been, in Sir Robert Mark's phrase, "an artisan force". That is to say, everyone has to enter the force as a police constable and has to work his way slowly and solidly up the ranks. There will always be some who will rise in that way, and that is wholly admirable, because they have the highest personal qualities. That should be the exception, not the rule.
No one in the Armed Services believes that all senior officers would have risen from the ranks. I hope that those new men who might enter the police force to become officers would be the product of our public and independent grammar schools, where the accent has always been on leadership. Leadership of the highest standard from men of a higher social and intellectual background is urgently required in the police force. Their entry would quickly alter the social composition of the force and give a sharper and clearer definition to the fight against crime and today's horribly clever criminals. I believe that corruption would be rooted out in a remarkably short time.
Too many comparisons must not be made between the police and the Armed Forces, but it is sad that when our forces did so well in the Falkland Islands the police should be having their present difficulties. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider my words carefully. He knows that I am pro-police, and that I want to help. I do not believe that the present position should be allowed to continue. I see no other long-term solution except the creation of an officer class. No obstacles should be allowed to stand in the way—no inquiries, no further delay and no pressure from the Police Federation of England and Wales. The nation expects quick and determined action to raise the status of the police forces to that enjoyed by the Armed Services and to put right what has unfortunately gone wrong.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: This is rather a shock. I want to draw the attention of the House to a matter that has not been discussed during the Session and which I think will be discussed at great length when we return on 18 October and throughout the Session. I may be wrong.
The nurses are still fighting for their wage increase. In case any of my hon. Friends are interested, there is a group of them in Victoria Gardens near the Emily Pankhurst statue. They will be pleased to see any Opposition Members—I do not know about Tory Members—to explain that they will be fighting for their wage claim after the House has gone into recess. I have no doubt that other hon. Members will refer to that matter.
I have been watching the signs over the past few months of the impending international banking collapse in the way that I did in 1972, 1973 and 1974. It was apparent to me,

but not to many people then in Government or in Opposition, that there was a possibility of a banking collapse.
Many people thought that because the then Leader of the Liberal Party was one of the directors it was wrong to refer to London and Counties Securities Group Ltd. which was slipping down the drain fast in the summer of 1973. It was part of the collapse that took place during the summer of 1973–74, which resulted in the Financial Times index dropping to about 146 points in the Following January after the Labour Government were returned. The collapse was sparked off because of all the money that had gone into property speculation. It was somebody else's money and it was there to be burnt. Many other secondary banks used other people's money without penalty, making profits—

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): It was not real money.

Mr. Skinner: I agree with the Leader of the House that it was not real money. The secondary banks only played at monetarism when it suited them and when it made profits. The moment that the money started to go down the drain, they did not want to play that game. They wanted somebody else to bail them out. The people that did that were the taxpayers—those maligned workers who are talked about whent they threaten to take industrial action or take a couple of days off work, those whom the Tory Government and others, unfortunately, think are ruining the economy. Keyser Ullmann, is headed by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) who is trying to make headway in the House, so I am told.
I read a report this week that the Bank of England is still setting aside money—nine years later—to cover the 1973 secondary banking collapse. Since then interest rates have shot up higher. There is a temporary lull because of the mid-term elections in the United States of America and other factors in the British economy. The United States banks are making efforts to reduce interest rates because of the problems in the banking system. Unless something drastic happens in the future interest rates will continue to increase.
Whenever there is a crisis or collapse of that kind it is always the workers, the unemployed, the taxpayers and the ratepayers in this and other countries who have to pay the bill. The picture now is not of an imminent collapse in the secondary banking system, but a crisis of more gigantic proportions—the collapse of the primary banks. We are on the verge of an international breakdown.
The right hon. Lady the Prime Minister returned recently from summit talks and talked about rescheduling the Eastern block debt, as if there were only a problem with Poland, Hungary, Rumania and Yugoslavia. That is not the case. The big debtors to the Western banks, and principally the United States banks, are Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Taiwan, the Philippines and South Korea. Those are the countries where the Americans, like a travelling pawnshop, with their ever-rising interest rates, have gone with their petrodollars saying "Here is your money. It does not matter whether you have any money to pay back. Invest in this, and buy some arms." As a result those countries are up to their necks in debt, not because of strikes—we are always told that the eager beavers work away in those countries to produce goods and beat British shipbuilders and textile workers.
South Korea has to pay about £2,500 million in interest this year out of the £3,500 million that it owes. That country is held out as an example to us. It is one of the areas in which we shall see trouble in the future. It is all part of the casino economy. There are two types of economy in the world—the industrial economy involved in the manufacture of goods and services, and the casino economy where money is made from speculation. With high interest rates the casino economy has made a fortune. It will not last for ever even with increasing interest rates. It is easier to invest money and receive 15 per cent. interest than to invest in manufacturing industries where the rate of return is only about 4 or 5 per cent. There is more ability to make money in the casino economy.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Skinner: No. Others of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
The top four clearing banks made £3,000 million in the first two years of this Government. Many people may have thought that the massive profits of the casino economy would continue for ever, but we are now seeing the first signs of even that bubble beginning to burst. That is happening not only because the Tory Government took away the extra profits from the banks in the Budget. The real reason is more fundamental. The practice of money being borrowed and lent at interest rates of up to 20 per cent. has to stop somewhere. The 93 less developed countries on the receiving end cannot pay it back at those rates. They are up to their necks in debt.

Mr. Alan Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Skinner: No. Even though the hon. Gentleman may wish to be constructive, I wish to get on.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will not give way to anyone. He is giving a seminar on banks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Alan Clarke: Tell us about the Brandt report. That is what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Mr. Skinner: I am not drawing the same conclusions as the Brandt report. The hon. Gentleman should not think that I have been carried away by the ideas of his right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who usually sits in the corner seat across the Gangway and stares at the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who wants to sit in the opposite seat. Their recipe would not solve the problem, but merely throw a blanket over it. They want to settle it forever so that there is peace.

Mr. Alan Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman want war?

Mr. Skinner: I mean economic peace.
In the capitalist world the result is inevitable. The right hon. member for Sidcup cannot reconstruct the situation in the way that he thinks. Bankers will not lend money at 5 per cent., 8 per cent. or 12 per cent. when in the real market they can get 20 per cent. or even 25 per cent.
The crisis points to the real problems in the capitalist economy. It also shows that inflation in this country has

little to do with whether ASLEF is on strike of whether Arthur Scargill and the miners are threatening to strike. Those things might affect the economy at the margin, but the real problem is high interest rates.
The ever-rising plateau of interest rates means that more and more people in the financial institutions can make money. They can lend or borrow it all over the world without taking much account of confidence or the ability of the lenders to pay it back. Massive rescheduling will soon have to take place. Already 26 countries are involved in rescheduling to the United States and other Western banks. The British banks are trying to keep out of it as much as they can, but in their search for more and more profit they, too, have become involved in the network of moneylending.
Nine of the top United States banks have already lent the equivalent of twice their assets to only six countries—the six top borrowers that I mentioned earlier, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, the Philippines, Taiwan and South Korea. It is no wonder that we are beginning to see evidence of a possible breakdown in the near future. That is why I felt it necessary to bring the situation to the attention of the House.
In the United States Drysdale Securities went off the market in May owing $160 million. As a result, one of the top United States banks, Chase Manhattan, has ended up with about $285 million debts floating around.
The Penn Square bank in Oklahoma went in July with about $200 million loans left for someone else to pick up. Other banks will not pick them up. At the end of the day it will be the workers in America—or those people who would like to work—who will pick up the tab, and as a result of the international finance network workers all over the world will be affected.
The international financiers will try to build a fence around those two failures and the many others like Braniff Airways in the United States. Each time there is a failure they build another fence to try to hold the system together and establish confidence, which is all the system is based on. But my guess is that they will not be able to hold the ring.
In Italy about £824 million has gone awash, we are told, because of Signor Calvi being found hanged under Blackfriars bridge. The Banco Ambrosiano has defaulted on the money and more will probably follow in its wake. In Canada the loans/loss provision has been increased by between 50 per cent. and 75 per cent. in the last six months trading. South Korea, as I said, the fourth largest international borrower, is having to find £2,500 million to pay interest charges, and a large Dutch building society went down last week.
In the City columns the situation is begining to show itself. It is emerging day after day. It all points to the fact that in the real economy it is not the workers who are at fault, as the Prime Minister and others are always saying. It is not even the few trade unions barons, as they are called who are causing the trouble. The real problems lie in the system of financing. One reason why we have 4 million people on the dole is that money is lent and borrowed in that way.
People may argue that in Britain our banking system is stronger and better controlled, and the same cannot happen. After the secondary banking crisis great efforts were made to ensure that the same could not happen again. But it is happening. Lloyds bank has had to set aside many more millions of pounds because of bad debts, as has the


Midland bank. I read in the news paper today that the National Westminster bank has had to set aside between £45 million and £78 million, for bad debt provision. In addition, up to £19.6 million, has had to be set aside for bad debts in the finance for industry. That finance was going to solve all the problems by providing money to let the manufacturing base burgeon and grow.
The Government then have the cheek to talk of monetarism and say that market forces will solve all problems. We must become aware of what is happening in the casino economy not only here but internationally. Real, and not funny money has to be found at the end of the day to meet the debts. There will be more liquidations, and those whom we represent will bear the burden.
One of my hon. Friends asked a parliamentary question about the number of empty factories, and the reply was that 1,000 factories belonging to the English Industrial Estates Corporation are empty. Why? Because it cannot afford to borrow any more money for machinery and wages for the workers. It cannot continue to borrow at the rate of 15, 16 or 20 per cent. That makes the intervention by the International Monetary Fund when the Labour Government were in power pale into insignificance.
We should compare what is happening now, the impending crisis as a result of the so-called freedom of market forces and allowing money to be used that way, with that puny intervention by the IMF, which some Labour Members got worked up about. They took many harsh measures and lost the election as a result, although North Sea oil was waiting around the corner with £8,000 million or £10,000 million a year to be used to strengthen our industrial base.
This is an important issue. We shall return to it after we come back on 18 October. There are real danger signs on the horizon. Banks are able to survive only on the basis of confidence. That confidence is beginning to wane fast. Once the ring to which I referred is broken, that confidence will be more severely dented.
Therefore, I say to my hon. Friends who have listened patiently to my remarks that I hope that more misery will not be caused to our people I hope that at the Labour Party conference we bear in mind that it is not our job to look at tiny internal crises. When we talk about taking over the banks, we should say to the people of Britain that we are trying to safeguard our banks against all the problems in the outside world. That might not make the difference that some of us would like in the wake of a banking collapse, but it would give us the ability to withstand it and guide our national investment as it is not being guided at the moment. For those reasons we should debate that matter before the House rises.

Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did well. He should get into Frank Johnson's column tomorrow with that speech. He should get good coverage. I am not sure how greatly his speech extended the sum of human knowledge.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the coming crisis of capitalism. I seem to have heard that somewhere before. Did not people called Marx and Engels write books about it? However, nothing happened. I think that the hon. Gentleman's speech was directed towards the fact that he lost the argument with the Labour Party National Executive committee over the nationalisation of the banks.

He is still trying to pursue that argument by other means. However, that is his problem and he can carry on in his own way.
Some years ago, when Lord Glenamara was Leader of the House, he said that the Summer Adjournment debate should be used occasionally for hon. Members to raise constituency points. I remember being ticked off by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) when he was Leader of the House for making general political points in my speech.
I shall mention four constituency issues on which there is direct ministerial responsibility. I have given my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House notice of them. First, I am extremely disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has refused to include the Melton borough council on the two working parties that have been set up to examine the advantages and disadavantages of remote disposal of mine spoil, or underground stowage of it, in the Vale of Belvoir coalfield. The argument that has been given in correspondence and meetings with me is that the working parties are concerned with the whole coalfield and that if he puts Melton on the working parties other local authorities, such as South Kesteven in Lincolnshire and Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire, will want to be on the working parties as well.
That is an incomprehensible argument. At present there is only one plan for a coal mine in the area, which is at Asfordby. A planning application has been made and most people support the idea in principle, although there are some difficulties which I am sure we can sort out with good will on all sides.
However, the disposal of spoil remains a major problem and an emotive issue. Surely the body that is closest to the people, the Melton borough council, should be fully involved in the discussions. Asfordby is entirely in its area and no other. No one could be offended if the council were included on the working parties. I hope that that will be approved forthwith. The excuses against including it seem feeble to me. They were badly received locally.
I now come to three matters on which my constituents need early decisions from the Secretary of State for Transport. First, progress on planning in the town of Melton Mowbray has been held up by uncertainty over the inner relief road. A public inquiry was held into the road proposal in March. The town has a severe congestion problem arising from heavy lorry traffic, which causes many environmental difficulties and considerable local resentment. I hope that we can have the Minister's decision on that road within the next two months, before the House returns. The issues are not complex and are of strictly local significance. Nothing will be gained by delay.
To the north of Melton Mowbray lies the village of Bottesford, which is divided by the A52 trunk road. Thanks to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in his previous capacity as Under-Secretary of State for Transport, we now have a clear proposal for a bypass round Bottesford. That is a part of the post-1984 programme. I understand that the consultants' report has been received by the Minister. I hope that it will be published forthwith so that public consultation can begin and so that we can get on with building the road.
I welcome the Minister's decision to give the go-ahead to the scheme to improve Muston Bends on the A52, a mile


or so away. I am sorry that the work that was supposed to begin in early 1983 is now to be in late 1983. I hope that there will be no further slippage. That work is needed now in the interests of road safety.
Finally there is the A6 trunk road through Quorn and Mountsorrel. The good offices of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, who came to Mountsorrel last year and met local residents, have achieved a bypass proposal in the Government's programme. The environmental conditions are dreadful on the A6 in those villages. Planning will continue to grind to a halt until the old pre-war bypass line can be revoked. The old line makes no sense any more. Everyone knows it. The sooner my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport publishes the Mountsorrel revocation order and holds any necessary public inquiries, the sooner much-needed industrial and residential development can go ahead. As for the bypass itself, the consultants should be appointed forthwith so that the road can be under construction by the end of the decade at the worst.
All those matters are of great and urgent importance to thousands of constituents. I hope that they will evoke a sympathetic response and early action from Ministers, through the offices of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Ted Graham: Before the House goes into recess I wish to raise a matter that is of general importance, which also causes deep concern to many of my constituents who come from Cyprus or who have relatives who are still in Cyprus. Many hon. Members have a deep interest in the affairs of Cyprus.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend is right. Many hon. Members are interested. However, not one Liberal or Social Democrat is interested in the subject.

Mr. Graham: No doubt my hon. Friend will make his points later, when I shall be prepared to listen to his speech.
The issue about which I am concerned is raised by constituents of hon. Members who are aware of the problem without fail every July because July is the month when they remember two black anniversaries. The first is the anniversary of 15 July, when the coup took place. The second is 20 July, when the invasion took place. Those two events left a trail of desolation and disaster, and particularly heartache and concern among my constituents.
The facts are stark and simple. Some 6,000 civilians died in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. There were 200,000 refugees who could not return to their homes. Most of them were Greek Cypriots who could not return to the part of the island in which they had lived all their lives. Moreover, there were many Turkish Cypriots who were unable to return to that part of the island that they knew well.
We also know that since 1974 more than 30,000 people have been settled on the island by the Turkish authorities. Most of them have been settled in homes that formerly belonged to Greek Cypriots in the part of the island that is now dominated by the Turkish authorities. It is fairly well established and not denied that more than 30,000 Turkish troops occupy between 37 and 40 per cent. of the

land area in spite of the fact that the Turkish Cypriots account for only 18 per cent. of the population. Vast swathes of territory in Cyprus are controlled against the will of the majority of the people.
Despite the fact that, eight years later, more than 10,000 people have been admitted and are now settled happily in Britain following their status as refugees in 1974, and despite the fact that Britain has been generous in that sense, there is much bitterness, anger and despair among not only those 10,000 people and their families, but among million of other people who follow the tragedy with great interest. The reason can be told simply.
In 1974, Britain was a co-signatory, with Turkey and Greece, to a pledge to maintain the sovereignty, integrity and independence of Cyprus. To our shame and regret, we know in retrospect that Britain should have done a great deal more to stop the invasion.
Many hon. Members have been painfully reminded of that black day of shame. The word "betrayal" has been used in many other contexts. Many of us were reminded of the invasion especially when, in a debate on the Falkland Islands on April 14 my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), said:
I hope the House will reflect on another occasion, on the attitudes that we should follow where territorial disputes have been successfully pursued by force in recent times, and, notably, in the case of the island of Cyprus. We cannot take one line on one part of the world and another on another simply because it happens to be inconvenient to our personal interest or attitudes."—[Official Report, 14 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 1200.]
I know that the Leader of the House is listening with care and attention to those matters that we consider should be brought to the attention of his colleagues,. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East was rightly condemning the Argentine aggression in the Falklands in the speech from which I have just quoted.
My constituent, David Kyriacos of 89 Westerham Avenue, Edmonton asked me pertinently:
If Britain justifies going to war in 1982, why did we not defend our honour—and the integrity of Cyprus—in 1974?
It may be argued that the two invasions are not comparable. It will take a great deal to convince my constituents, who were made refugees, whose homes and villages have been destroyed and whose families were killed and maimed, that the two are not comparable.
I shall now deal with the missing Greek Cypriots who have disappeared without trace. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) is present. he has done a great deal about these matters. I know that he will agree that there are now about 2,000 missing people. I received more informantion recently that 1,619 people were missing. Perhaps that is the result of additional research. There is evidence to suggest that those people were taken prisoner and were in the hands of the Turkish authorities. Yet no trace of them can be found.
I should like the House to imagine the anguish and heartache that lies behind those disappearances. It is bad enough if one's husband or father has been killed. Nevertheless, there is some certainty in knowing that a close relative is dead. There is a finality to it and one may determine to make the best of a bad job. But consider the anguish when one has no idea of what has happened to that person.
When I visited several refugee camps in Cyprus a few years ago nothing left a deeper scar on my memory and emotions than those who could no get news of their loved


ones. I shall read part of a letter that I received only this week from my constituent, Maria Kyriakou of 216 Hedge Lane. She wrote:
During the summer of 1974 and after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus my husband … from Komi-Kebir Famagusta district, born 1918 is missing. Since then, my husband is considered officially a missing person and he is among the 2,000 missing persons as a result of that invasion. Despite our repeated requests, the Turkish Government refuse to give us any information as to their whereabouts. Because of this I and my family live in constant agony and uncertainty as to whether my husband is alive or dead".
When Rauf Denktash, the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community came to the House and had discussions here, I asked him bluntly whether he was satisfied that there was any evidence, of which we were not aware, that the Turkish authorities knew what had happened to these people. He told me that careful inquiries had been made but that no evidence had been produced.
I know that the Foreign Secretary is a busy man, I wish him well in his present journeys. He is a caring and compassionate man. I make a simple request of the Leader of the House before the House goes into recess. Will he undertake to advise the Foreign Secretary that if he does two things he will earn the gratitude of my constituents and thousands of others who think of the tragedy?
First, will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to urge on the Turkish authorities the paramount importance of resolving the mystery of the missing persons? Perhaps he would also point out that that would be assisted by allowing Greek Cypriots access to the evidence that the Turkish authorities profess not to have. Secondly, will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to pledge himself to keeping a solution to the Cyprus tragedy high on the agenda and an assurance that he will not be satisfied until a settlement has been achieved?

Sir Paul Hawkins: I urge on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we should not rise for the Summer Recess without a clear statement on a matter about which I know he knows a great deal—the need for a rural policy, especially some policies that will help young qualified entrants to farming to get holdings of their own.
The National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association have, at long last, come to an agreement. They were late in coming to it. However, that agreement does not go nearly far enough. They agree that legislation is necessary on some aspects—I agree with them. Nevertheless, if we once get some legislation on those points, it would be many years before the House would allow any further legislation. The policies set out by the NFU and the CLA will not produce many holdings to let.
Pension funds have been buying large tracts of land in arable communities in Eastern England, which, to pay them tribute, they have good reason for not letting because of British fiscal policies and legislation that was introduced by the previous Labour Government that allowed tenants and their descendants to inherit farm tenancies. This puts possession of his own land out of the landlord's reach for perhaps 100 years.
The Leader of the House will be well aware that a healthy agricultural sector needs a continual influx of dedicated and well qualified younger farmers to take up

the torch where their fathers left off. Many hundreds of younger men well qualified at agricultural colleges cannot find any land to farm on their own account. Many people besides myself are very concerned about the great difficulties facing those who wish to farm. Those difficulties include very high land prices, the loss of land for industrial and commercial development and the amalgamation of small and medium size acreages into very large farming holdings.
Many people are greatly worried about the depopulation of rural areas and particularly the loss of leaders. The squire has gone. In many cases, the parson, too, has gone Now the farmer has also gone. Many villages that I knew as a boy had perhaps 10 farmers but now do not have one. Those farms and many others have been amalgamated. I know of 10,000-hectare holdings in my area farmed by one company, probably from London, with perhaps a manager in one village. The other villages are then without leadership or any chance of any other person taking a farm there.
Urgent measures should be taken to reduce the dangerous loss of valuable agricultural land by rebuilding the old industrial cities rather than taking green fields for new industrial areas. We should look very carefully at any piece of land that is taken for housing or industrial purposes, because I believe that in this battle for land the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is very much at a disadvantage. Industrial concerns want flat fields, which generally means the best farming land, and they will not drain land that is unsuitable for agriculture but which could quite well be used for industrial and housing purposes.
I also seek an assurance that we shall develop a complete rural policy. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House comes from a farming background and no doubt knows the farming district of his constituency well. Perhaps in his area there are plenty of smaller holdings available to let, but in my part of the world—Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire—there are very few. Almost every other holding that comes up for sale is bought by a pension fund. I therefore seek his assurance that before the House rises, or very shortly afterwards, we shall get down to producing a rural policy to give young entrants to farming the chance to farm on their own.

Mr. Ken Eastham: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Leader of the House the grave problems facing Manchester. It was suggested earlier that the Prime Minister should have a good rest and a good holiday. Many citizens in Manchester cannot look forward to a good rest or a good holiday or even to enough money to meet their basic needs.
I refer to the very serious developments for employment in Manchester. Earlier this week, the Opposition chose unemployment as the major issue to be debated before the House rose for the recess. Today, however, I raise the special case of Manchester. The Government have decided that from 1 August—in two days' time—no further aid or assistance whatever will be given to the city. They are depriving the city of assisted area status, so there will be no help.
I substantiate my case on behalf of Manchester and my appeal for reconsideration of that decision by citing some alarming facts that should distress every hon. Member. A


census taken in 1981—the situation in Manchester has deteriorated still further since then—shows that of 36 metropolitan districts,, Manchester is fifth from the top in the unemployment league. The only districts that have male unemployment rates as high or higher than Manchester are Knowsley with 24·6 per cent., Liverpool with 21·6 per cent., South Tyneside with 18·5 per cent., and Sunderland with 18·1 per cent. All of those districts have been afforded special development area status. Yet Manchester, which also has 18·1 per cent. unemployment, is to receive no assisted status. Towards the bottom of the list, however, Doncaster with 11·9 per cent. unemployment is to have intermediate area status, Wigan with 11·3 per cent. development area status and Barnsley with 10·7 per cent. intermediate area status.
The situation in Manchester is constantly deteriorating. With unemployment already more than 18 per cent., the city can no longer contain the economic blizzard. It must now suffer complete neglect and the denial of any aid or grants. At the same time, it suffers the continual cuts imposed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, who seems to be conducting a vendetta against inner city areas. All this compounds the grave predicament facing the people of Manchester.
We have made representations to Ministers many times about the acute crisis in Manchester. We are told that the Government work on a travel-to-work area formula which produces a considerably lower unemployment figure, and so no consideration can be given to our case. We pointed out to many Ministers that it is well-known in Manchester that the people living in suburbia are travelling to the city and taking the jobs. Manchester is left with a massive residue of unemployed, unskilled people who are unable to secure work.
Local authorities and economists feel that no longer is an honest formula being followed for awarding development area status. Unemployment in Manchester is far higher than in Newcastle, Sheffield, Leeds or Birmingham, but our representations on behalf of the city receive no sympathy or assistance. I recognise that there is mass unemployment all over the country. However, the situation in Manchester is so acute that dramatic and radical steps will have to be taken. Manchester is suffering far more than any other region except Northern Ireland. The unemployment exchanges advise that for large parts of the inner areas of Manchester the unemploymnt rate is 35 per cent. There are 35 unemployed people for every available vacancy.
The position is the same for those under 19. The total of unemployed youths in 1980 was 2,477. It is now 4,395. For the age group 16 to 64 the unemployment rate in Manchester is 20·9 per cent. That compares with the rate for England and Wales of 11·3 per cent., Scotland 14·4 per cent. and Wales 15·2 per cent. In the North-West region the rate is 14·5 per cent. and in the Northern region 16·2 per cent. This is a glaring example of where something dramatic must be done.
To the dwindling job opportunities must be added extreme poverty and a growing number of applications for supplementary benefit. In 1980 there were 50,000 applications for supplementay benefit. That figure has risen to 69,201 for 1982.
I received a news release from the CBI this week dealing with jobs and employment in the various regions, and special reference is made to the North-West. The report said:
General level of industrial activity remains low and there is some evidence that it will deteriorate still further. Order books are weak. Interest rates are seen as the largest single constraint to investment and are still imposing significant pressure on company finances. Company liquidations in the North West for the first six months of the year at 73r j 4–68 equalled 13 per cent. of the national total—the highest for any single region.
The report specially mentions interest rates, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred. It is not inflation but high interest rates that are causing so much trouble, with the banks skimming off the profits.
Manchester is rapidly becoming a city of despair. As the House knows, last year there were serious riots in parts of the city. Does anyone wonder that the city finally erupted? I shall not be surprised if there are not further serious cases of unrest by citizens who have nothing to lose and, out of desperation, cry out for attention to their most miserable plight.
At this late hour I appeal to the Leader of the House on behalf of Manchester. The Government have decided that from 1 August they will no longer give the city assistance. But something dramatic must be done. Manchester is not getting a fair deal. The Government are showing brutal indifference. Irrespective of which party is in power, the Government have a responsibility to the citizens of Britain and I appeal to the Government seriously to reconsider their decision.

Mr. David Atkinson: I shall not detain the House for long, but I should not want the House to rise before debating an issue that is causing one of the deepest rifts within the Western alliance in recent years—the Siberian gas pipeline deal.
Today the country stands with the rest of the European Community in opposing the American embargo on exports of equipment for the project. I question whether Britain would now be taking the same strong view if the engineering company of John Brown and Company was not involved. Either way, the whole unhappy affair represents yet another failure on the part of the alliance to produce a firm, effective and united approach towards our trading relations with the Soviet bloc.
I realise that the arguments about the pipeline may now be academic because it is to go ahead, but we should remind ourselves of the possible consequences, which seem to concern President Reagan far more than those nations involved in Western Europe. The fact that France, West Germany, Belgium and Italy are prepared to put themselves "in hock" with the Soviet Union on such a vital commodity is an indictment of the concept of the European Community and illustrates its failure to produce an adequate energy policy of its own. That West Germany, usually one of the Community's most enthusiastic partners and its prime banker, is prepared to rely on the Soviet Union for more than 30 per cent. of its gas and 5 per cent. of its total energy needs in the 1990s is especially surprising. The decision to go ahead with the pipeline also ignores the fact that north-western Europe is entirely capable of supplying the same amount of gas from its own proven and probable reserves.
One assumes, and hopes, that these countries have thought out the consequences to their domestic consumers and to their industries should the Soviet Union decide to cut off the flow of gas. The Soviets have done precisely that in the past to their own customers and for their own reasons. China, Yugoslavia and Albania are all closer, ideologically, to the Soviet Union than are any of its new capitalist customers. We must also presume that they have thought out how they will stand if and when the Soviets display the same aggression as they did in Afghanistan, the same suppression of self-determination as they did in Poland as well as the continuing suppression of freedom for their own people.
My fear is that every European country that is a party to the deal will make a small but serious move towards neutrality. The moment that the French, the German, Belgian and Italian homes and factories rely upon an uninterrupted supply of Soviet gas they will render themselves "Finlandised'—self-interested, hesitant, fearful, and muted in speaking out against or retaliating against any further Soviet aggression, intervention or suppression.
Moreover, I wonder whether such countries have thought who will build the pipeline. I am not talking of the supply of Western technology and equipment but of the hard labour. The pipeline is already being built. Reports from various locations in the Soviet Union suggest that more and more prisoners sentenced to hard labour or internal exile are being used. About 100,000 such people are estimated to be involved. About 10,000 of them were sentenced because of their political opposition to the Communist regime, because they were monitoring the Helsinki Final Act, because of their religious beliefs, or for attempting to form trade unions in the Soviet Union.
From the source of the huge Urngoy gas field in northern Siberia, labour camps line the pipeline westwards, housing prisoners, not in houses or barracks, but in camps or scanty wagons which offer little protection from winter temperatures, which sometimes reach below minus 40 degrees centigrade.
Workers in exile are similarly appallingly provided for in their colonies. The few shops are never well stocked. Workers rely on food from relations. Vitamin deficiencies cause disease. Little heavy construction equipment is used and they are forced to perform most of the heavy manual labour involved in constructing the pipeline. Injuries and accidents occur frequently. Women working with the asbestos and fibreglass used to line the pipeline suffer from severe blistering. Gloves are issued only twice a year. Eczema is widespread and there is a high rate of lung collapse.
Such inhumanity to man by man rivals that which occurred during the construction of the pyramids by the Pharaohs. Its purpose is to advance the living standards of people in Western Europe.
It is suggested that President Reagan is being less than honest in attempting to sabotage the European end of the deal while continuing to sell American grain to make up the shortfall in Soviet harvests. That is to misunderstand the facts and to fall for Soviet propaganda. American grain is paid for in cash. That leaves less for the Soviet war machine budget. Moreover, as we know from President Carter's grain embargo following the Afghanistan crisis, alternative suppliers from the West, notably from Argentina, are only too happy to step in. The pipeline will not only make Western Europe more dependent on the

Soviet Union, it will increase Soviet hard currency earnings by as much as one-third, and our technology will substitute theirs.
The whole unhappy episode serves as yet another warning to the Western Alliance to decide with the utmost urgency on a united approach to East-West trade, to outlaw cheap credits, to control the sale of advanced technology and to agree an effective sanctions and embargo policy as a deterrent against a future Afghanistan or an event such as the imposition of martial law in Poland.
I look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about a British initiative to resolve the issue. If we do not learn the lesson of the Siberian pipeline deal Lenin will be proved right in predicting that capitalism will manufacture the rope by which it will be hanged.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I draw the attention of the House to the problems that I mentioned on 1 April when I objected to the House rising for the Easter Recess until the Secretary of State for the Environment had reconsidered his decision to hand over GLC property to the Hackney borough council. I argued that Hackney was not capable of absorbing 17,500 properties overnight and that the tenants would suffer badly.
Four months have passed and all that I forecast has happened. Conditions in the Hackney housing department are almost chaotic. People are suffering because their properties are not maintained. In the debate on 1 April I said that, although I could understand handing over property to a council in full control of its affairs and which maintained its property well, I could not understand how it was possible to hand over so many properties to an authority which was already having grave difficulty in managing its own properties.
The properties are in an appalling state. For years I have argued with the GLC about their condition. To hand them to an authority already in difficulties does not make sense.
I have been fighting hard to get some sense into the housing system in my constituency, to little avail. In the previous debate I said:
I am continually pressing Hackney borough council to carry out proper maintenance and repairs, but it cannot do those either. In Hackney, one sees damp walls and ceilings, leaky roofs and rotten frameworks."—[Official Report, 1 April; Vol. 21, c. 508.]
I recently made a complaint on behalf of a constituent and received the following letter from a council officer:
I refer to your inquiry regarding conditions existing at the above premises of … I am informed that the ceiling, although damp and bulged, did not appear to be imminently dangerous. I would also advise you that there are a number of other defects existing which require attention.
I am still trying to have that place put right. I am told that the council officer has to serve a notice under section 9(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1957. That is typical. I am not describing a one-off case. It is impossible. We are not dealing with an academic issue but with tenants who have to suffer. Only because they are exasperated do they come to see me to demand help. The tenants do not pay cheap rents, but very high rents forced upon them by the Government.
In the debate on 1 April I said that there was insufficient discussion between the council and the GLC about the problems. I said that the GLC did not even know its own


tenants, its own property, or whether they owned it or had sold it. I said that it did not know whether the property was empty or occupied. In such circumstances to hand over the properties is nonsense. I predicted that there would be interminable trouble. That has proved to be true. Hackney had to take extraordinary decisions to cancel all movements between properties. The position is chaotic. The tenants were not happy because they were unable to move and could not get things done.
During the earlier debate I drew attention to the separate work forces of Hackney borough council and the GLC. The employees of Hackney borough council do not enjoy the same conditions as those of the GLC. Consequently, it was impossible for me to believe that as soon as the GLC employees were taken over by Hackney borough council, they would have their terms of service reduced to those of Hackney borough council. Because that has not happened, the Hackney borough council personnel refuse to go on to the ex-GLC estates.
We have an emergency patrol system. The idea is that there should be 24-hour a day cover so that any problems within the authority's properties can be immediately dealt with. Now, if there is an emergency on an ex-GLC estate, the emergency patrols refuse to go there because, they claim, the conditions of service are such that they are not prepared to cross the boundary to an ex-GLC estate. An elderly lady has had her windows smashed. She was unable to get anything done. I had to arrange for something to be done. If I had not crossed the boundary she would have gone all night with broken windows because the emergency patrol refused to do so.
I would not mind so much if the problem was being resolved, but it has gone on for four months and it could go on for another 40 months. There has been no resolution of the problem. I am told "We are sorry but there is a dispute between the two groups of workers and there is no means of resolving it." I cannot accept that. The Secretary of State was aware of the problem on 1 April. I warned him that this would happen and yet he went ahead with the transfer of the properties.
I also said during the debate that transfers would become a lottery. It is a lottery. We have had constant discussions about the mobility scheme. We have heard the argument that the national mobility scheme works. We are also told that inner London had its mobility scheme. I continually pointed out to the Secretary of State and to his Ministers that it is not working in Hackney. I have brought them evidence to show that it is not working and I have raised the issue in the House. They still argue that it is satisfactory and when it is pointed out to them that that is not so, they say "That is only Hackney." But I am responsible for Hackney and must argue its case.
Since the changeover, transfers have been reduced almost to a trickle. Most empty property is being identified for homeless families. Tenants can transfer only if they are of the highest medical category or if the property is underoccupied and there is some advantage to the authority in a transfer. I hear of distressing circumstances of people who want to leave properties for a variety of reasons but are unable to do so. The tenants are dissatisfied because they recognise that the transfer system is neither fair nor just.
I had a letter sent to me this afternoon from a lady constituent with a son aged 11. They are living more than

11 stories high in a high-rise block of flats. She has tried to be rehoused for some years because when the child was young he kept trying to climb out the window. Now, the child is in desperate need of psychiatric treatment. In her letter the lady described a recent experience. She said that there had been a knock at her door and because she was ill in bed the boy had gone to answer it. She said that, through the spy hole, the boy could see a man. Without opening the door, the boy asked the man what he wanted but the man would not answer. The man then left that door, went to the next flat, and rang the bell. The man then left. The boy was worried and within a few minutes the doorbell rang again. The mother again told the boy to answer it. The next thing that happened was that the mother could not find the boy. She had been lying in bed, ill, and she became panic stricken. She tried to find her son in the flat. Suddenly, she heard the doorbell ring again. It was the next door neighbour who told the woman that the boy was in her flat in a hysterical condition, screaming about burglars and people trying to break in the door. The boy had climbed out of the window—11 storeys high—had crept along a small ledge with his arms around a pillar and had climbed into the neighbour's flat. That lady has been trying to get another flat for years. The position is appalling. The boy has grown up and has become meurotic. Yet there is no way that I can get that lady rehoused, although I shall go on fighting and arguing. It will not happen because other problems have been imposed on the authority with the transfer of the properties on 1 April.
I have raised this issue today because the Secretary of State must be told that he must treat the housing problem in Hackney seriously. Rumour is rife in Hackney about maladministration. One can listen to such rumours on street corners. It is said that police inquiries are going on. One cannot find out much about what is happening. One does not go on rumour, but the rumour is rife on the estates. It is said that proper repairs are not being carried out because things are not as they should be. That is causing a great deal of trouble.
There is also a feeling that the officers themselves are all at sea with each other. I heard a rumour yesterday, which I find hard to believe, that some officers of the council have now formed themselves into a group called the Hackney Labour housing group. Apparently, the group meets privately in the evenings. It is alleged that its task is to try to persuade the other officers of the council to join the Labour Party. It is alleged—here again, I do not have evidence—that staff are being pushed around, and that appointments and promotion will rely on the possession of an extreme left type of party card. I say this only because tenants are beginning to feel that they are in the middle of a political cockpit. The tenants do not like what is happening. When one sees the state of the properties and one experiences the type of problems that I have identified, it is not surprising even though it be untrue that people believe that things could not be run in this way unless there was something wrong.
I have complained publicly and bitterly about what is happening in Hackney. It is time that Hackney had the opportunity to tell the Secretary of State exactly what has gone wrong. I hope that the Secretary of State will undertake to set up an inquiry into the housing position in Hackney, which can only get worse. A decision was announced this week to take more money away from local government. Hackney will be one of the principal


candidates to lose money. Given the position that I have described, that will be virtual disaster for the people in my area.
Before we go into recess, I hope that the Secretary of State will say that he is prepared to order an inquiry into Hackney borough council housing management to ensure that the people in my constituency can have their houses properly repaired and maintained and to ensure that when they want transfers they can have them and that everything is just and fair in Hackney.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess it should first consider the state of civil defence. It is regrettable but realistic for the Government to have postponed the proposed civil defence exercise "Hard Rock" in consequence of the refusal by a number of Labour-controlled local authorities to make adequate preparations. Those councils should be thoroughly ashamed that as a result of their misguided attempts to make political demonstrations against nuclear weapons their own citizens are left the more vulnerable.
The council of Welwyn and Hatfield has declared that it will take as little action as possible for the defence of the district against nuclear attack. This attitude towards civil defence can be regarded only as irresponsible and an example of a local authority failing its people.
Citizens' lives could be put in jeopardy because civil defence would be essential should there be a nuclear war, conventional warfare, a natural disaster or a major accident. The advent of the nuclear deterrent has proved to be exactly what the term implies, a deterrent. Since the last world war conflicts have been carried on without such weapons. All such conflicts are tragic, but it is surely incumbent upon us to reduce tragedy to the minimum. The Government rightly seek true multilateral disarmament and we must ensure peace through security. Civil defence is part of that approach.
It is worth remembering that nuclear protection covers the possibility of a nuclear war involving Britain and defence against accidents in nuclear installations, terrorist attack with nuclear devices and fallout from large-scale or more limited wars between other countries fought elsewhere. All these possibilities threaten life, freedom and prosperity. They also threaten property.
Left-wing gimmickry in declaring nuclear-free zones will do nothing to prevent awesome consequences such as those to which I have referred, and nor can it achieve a certainty of freedom from attack. The key to survival is preparation. The community's well-being is such that necessary protection should be provided in the event of any form of warfare or disaster. That well-being should not be disregarded by a policy of doing the absolute minimum at present required by law.
Other services are provided for the good of local people. The fire, ambulance and police services are obvious examples. It would be foolish to argue that they encourage arson, accidents or crime. To deny the maximum number of the population the opportunity to survive because of a belief by a council that services such as civil defence encourage nuclear attack must surely be wrong. Civil defence is concerned with saving lives and not destroying them. All countries, neutral as well as aligned, which accept humanitarian principles have proper civil defence organisations.
With the Summer Recess before us, I hope sincerely that the Government will use the opportunity to consider legislative proposals to amend the planning regulations made under the Civil Defence Act 1948 so that our citizens have civil defence as a right and not as a privilege depending upon the political will of their local council.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Prime Minister said earlier today that she could not stand more than another 10 years of years such as this one. I shall spend about 10 minutes talking about the people of Keighley who have had one of her years. They have not benefited from her year. They face a workless existence because of the policies in which the right hon. Lady glories.
We should bear in mind that when we go into the Summer Recess the Health Service workers will continue working throughout much of the summer, having, a much shorter holiday than Members of Parliament. They will be fighting for a decent wage increase, which the Government are denying them. These people are vital for the maintenance of our health services. I have no doubt that lush barristers who come into the Chamber for a few hours to make their contributions find what I have just said amusing, but Health Service workers would very much like the earnings that barristers receive from the courts and the salary that they receive as Members of this place as well. If there were no more banisters tomorrow, they would be much less missed than if there were no more nurses or other Health Service workers.
Several months ago I initiated an Adjournment debate in which I asked the Government to retain intermediate area status for Keighley. I was told that there were areas that were much worse off than Keighley. I shall now describe what three years of Tory Government have achieved. From May 1979 until June 1981 the Conservative Government had increased the level of unemployment in Keighley by 181 per cent. On 8 July, a month later, the level of unemployment had increased by 1 per cent. to 13·3 per cent. and the total had increased by 52 boys to 251, by 55 girls to 169, by 145 men to 2,587 and by another 40 women, to make a total of 1,061, making a global total of 4,068 chasing about 80 vacancies in the Keighley travel-to-work area.
Keighley is a low-wage area. In the textile and engineering industries the trade unions have been highly co-operative in accepting new work practices. They have low wages and they have done everything that the Government have wanted them to do. However, they face redundancies month after month. The Government have no answer. They merely seek to attack the trade union movement.
The future is bleak. The multi-fibre arrangement which the Government are negotiating is based on high import quotas and it will do certain damage to the textile industry. The engineering industry is facing a bleak time and one major firm in my constituency is working on short time. I remind the Prime Minister through the Leader of the House of her achievements. In Keighley 1,521 people have been unemployed for up to 26 weeks while 820 have been unemployed for between six months and a year and 920 have been unemployed for between one year and two years. There are 316 who have been unemployed for over two years. They have about 80 vacancies to share between


them each month. I obtained those figures on 22 June in a reply to a parliamentary question. The position is now worse.
I ask the Government to review the curtailment of intermediate area status, which starts on 1 August. It is crazy economics to curtail industrial assistance which might give some encouragement to the production of permanent real jobs when by cutting back the Government will increase the payment of unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit payments.
Another Government achievement is that between May 1979 and February 1982 the increase in payments of supplementary benefit in the Keighley travel-to-work area to people of working age increased by about 200 per cent. The money is being paid out to those in the dole queue in a form of unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit.
The Government must take action to diminish those payments. At the very least, the Government should first restore intermediate area status to Keighley. If my constituents follow the hard-hearted attitude to the Secretary of State for Employment, get on a bike and cycle down to Bradford, they will find that Rank-Wharfedale has just closed, with the loss of several hundred jobs, and that GEC—a company brimming over with money that is run by Arnold Weinstock, who is one of the greatest admirers of the Prime Minister is closing its factories. International Harvesters, a large international combine, is also closing, with the loss of several thousand jobs. The prospect is extremely bleak and the restoration if intermediate area status would be a modest contribution to restoring confidence in the area.
Bradford people produce some of the finest textiles and engineering equipment in the world. They wish to have the opportunity to demonstrate their diligence and skill. Their present plight is not due to chance. The Government intend to crush the workers into supine acceptance of their policies.
I propose to quote extracts from a letter. I must be careful not to reveal the identity of the writer in case the employer, who is a Tory supporter, attempts to victimise the person. The letter says:
Please can you help or advise us? … We feel we are being victimised, and hardly know what we can do about it. Because of the present job situation, we feel we must hang on.
How is that for Tory policy working.
We work on a collective bonus scheme, and until October had good wages, which we were working very hard for.
In October, we were told we had to take a £10 cut in wages, and the bonus rate was dropped accordingly, and although we complained it didn't get us anywhere. We were promised that there would be no more cuts for 6 months, but starting tomorrow, a new bonus scheme goes into operation, which has been solely devised to ensure that we earn little or no bonus … We did join the … union but that was a couple of years ago, and"—
the boss—
threatened to close the sewing room down unless we dropped out. Everyone was scared of losing their jobs and now there is only two of us still in the union. Last year we were on short-time and Government grants, but things picked up and we have been on full time for the last six months … Is there anything that can be done, or is he going to be allowed to trample all over us?
If the Tory Government wish to demonstrate that people have a right to join a trade union and to expect a job, a reasonable expectation of being able to work and to bring

up their families, the least that they can do is to listen to such a plea and restore confidence and dignity to people by helping to create jobs.
We are asking only for a small measure—the restoration of intermediate area status to Keighley. I know the argument that larger areas of the country should have assisted area status. Under Tory policies, they need it. Will the Leader of the House review the position with the Department of Industry in order to restore intermediate areas status to Keighley and give it some badly needed confidence?

Mr. Tim Eggar: I support the comments of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) about Cyprus and missing people. We represent neighbouring constituenceis and have similar problems.
Another matter that should be discussed before the recess is the difficulties that face people who have been permanently disabled by accidents and their problems in being reintegrated into the community. The problem came to my notice through the experience of a constituent, who does not wish to be named. An accident on a motorcycle left him a paraplegic. He was fortunate enough to be admitted to the National Othopaedic hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I know that my hon. Friend has a special interest in the work of that hospital.
The spinal injuries unit at that hospital is pioneering new methods of treatment for people with serious spinal injuries. One effect of the new treatment is that, whereas traditionally it has taken some months to rehabilitate a person and return him to the community, the new treatment means that he can return to the community in a few weeks. There is a difference of between three and four months.
One difficulty with the new unit is the problem of coordinating the other elements in the local authority and central Government so as to ensure that, as soon as the patient is ready, the necessary facilities are available for him to re-enter the community. The first difficulty is the mobility allowance. The average amount of time that it takes for a patient who has been treated at the National Othopaedic hospital to receive the mobility allowance is about six months. That is extremely serious, because the majority of patients, if they are to work, must take driving lessons and must have a mobility allowance to be able to afford them. The second difficulty is that, regrettably, there have been considerable delays in the provision by the National Health Service of lightweight, modern wheelchairs. The third and major difficulty is that the hospital cannot ensure that local authorities respond quickly in providing accommodation for the patients.
Those with spinal injuries are often young. Alterations are made to their existing accommodation or new housing may be found for them if they have relied on the State in the past. Local authorities have a statutory obligation to provide such facilities, but the legislation is drafted in such a way that it is a matter of negotiation between the patient—in practice the hospital—and the local authority. My constituent found that, although local authorities are willing to help at the lower level—the officers who are responsible for making the alterations—there are considerable delays because decisions must be taken at senior officer level.
Something must be done to improve co-ordination and the power and influence of the hospital in order to persuade and perhaps force local authorities to make the necessary arrangements. We are not talking about huge sums of money. The average cost of alterations is about £5,000. It costs £88 a day to keep a patient in the spinal injuries unit. My constituent waited for about six months, occupying a bed in the hospital, because the local authority could not provide suitable accommodation within a reasonble time. In his case, there was a dispute between two local authorities as to who was responsible for him.
Quite apart from the financial side, there is the considerable psychological stress on the individuals. It is bad enough for these people to find that they are for ever to be paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair. It is worse to find, just as they are beginning to adjust and think about getting out in the world, that they are restricted to a hospital bed—not because of their ailments, because the hospital has done everything it can, but because of the slowness of local authorities. What is more, the work of the unit is much less effective. Staff become demoralised because they are having to turn away other patients whom they know would benefit from their treatment.
I realise that this is a difficult problem. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the House to pass legislation stipulating exactly what local authorities must do in every case. Nevertheless, is there not a case for the small number of units that deal with those who have become permanently disabled and their reintroduction into the community to be allocated funds that they can spend on making the necessary alterations for their patients?
This matter raises a number of questions, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will bring it to the attention of the appropriate Ministers, and that there will be an attempt during the recess to study this idea. I hope too that my right hon. Friend will draw to the attention of the Secretary of State that it is not appropriate for patients in spinal injury units to have to wait six months for their mobility allowances. This delay is caused partly by the need to have a GP counter-check the assurance given by a consultant surgeon as to the lack of mobility of the person concerned.

Mr. David Winnick: I should like to raise three matters, but before doing so I shall refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery), who mentioned corruption in the police force and criticised hon. Members who took up the issue. This is certainly not a question of police baiting. Two police officers have been found guilty of corruption by the process of the law, and have been sentenced to imprisonment. There have been allegations of obstruction of the investigations by Operation Countryman into corruption in the Metropolitan Police. The best way to defend the police force—and every community needs a police force —is to ensure that, if there is continued corruption, it is rooted out as quickly as possible. No doubt we shall receive a statement from the Home Secretary as soon as we return after the recess.

Mr. Montgomery: I said that I thought that the matter could have been handled differently. As the Prime Minister said during Question Time, the police are anxious to root out any corruption. Had the Liberals gone to the Attorney-General or the DPP, it would have been better than making the innuendoes that they did in the way that they did.

Mr. Winnick: Neither the Prime Minister's comment nor the way in which the hon. Gentleman raised the matter gave the impression that this was as serious a matter as it seems to be. These allegations should be looked into as quickly as possible.
The first of the three issues that I wish to raise concerns the terrible tragedy of the Middle East and the continued bombing and shelling by Israeli forces of the Lebanon. There is no doubt of the terrible civilian suffering that is taking place. Some of us saw on the television news last night the civilian casualties of the continued Israeli bombing.
I have never taken the view, as some of my hon. Friends know, that the Middle East is a simplistic issue. I know that some believe that the problem exists because Israel exists. I believe that Israel has every right to exist, although not I think with its present borders. There are also those who take the view that there is no Palestinian problem and that Palestinians, if there are such people, should merge with the other Arab countries. I do not believe in either of those two approaches. There needs to be a lasting political settlement. The trouble with the Israeli Government is that they seem to look upon the whole issue in the Lebanon as a military problem when it is a political one.
I wish to pay tribute to what I believe is the great courage of an outstanding and brilliant Israeli soldier, Colonel Eli Geva, who, although he supported at the beginning the excursion and invasion into Lebanon, later declared that he could not serve honourably in that operation. He asked on grounds of conscience not to continue to be involved in the war in which Israel was engaged in the Lebanon.
Colonel Eli Geva, who is no longer in the Israel Army, has shown two things: first, that there are many people in Israel, both military and others, who have consciences; and, secondly, that there is a lesson here for other countries as well, in the East, the West and the Arab countries, which is that if one puts on a uniform one still has a conscience. Perhaps that lesson will be learnt by other military people in other parts of the world.
The second issue I shall raise only briefly because my old friend the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) has already raised it. This is the question of Iranian students in Britain. It is generally accepted that there is a state of terror, perhaps the worst terror taking place anywhere in the world, in Iran. It would be wrong to send anyone back to Iran who might face execution. This is why we hope that the Home Office will exercise great care before any Iranian is forced to leave the United Kingdom.
The Home Office has said that if there is no evidence of any special risk to the individual concerned the Iranian will be expected to leave. But, what does the Home Office mean by "special risk"? Those who have studied in Britain, for example, can come under immediate suspicion when they return to Iran because they have studied in a Western country. Westernisation or any contact or association with those in the West, is immediately, in terrorist Iran, a subject for suspicion. A person could easily lose his life.
Therefore, as we are about to adjourn for nearly three months and many Iranians could be involved in appealing to the Home Office for permission to stay, I hope that the matter will be looked at favourably. I am not suggesting that those Iranians who ask to stay on for a while should be given permanent residence—that is not the issue. It is


simply a question of allowing them to stay longer, perhaps for 12 months, as Poles are allowed to do. These people should not be forced to return.
The third issue deeply concerns my constituency. In May 1979 unemployment in the Walsall travel-to-work area was 5·1 per cent. Last week, according to the latest unemployment statistics, the figure was 18·6 per cent. The Leader of the House knows the West Midlands well, but what I have described as the growth of mass unemployment in the past three years in the West Midlands is an illustration of the devastation to industry in the area with which I am associated.
In May 1979 there were 8,429 people unemployed in the travel-to-work area and today it is 31,368. There are 427 registered job vacancies, and out of that 427 very few are related to engineering, the type of work in which most of those made redundant in the past two or three years were employed. In one part of my constituency, Willenhall, where there are manufacturers of locks, the increase in unemployment since the Government have been in office has been 370 per cent. In Aldridge, represented in the House by a Conservative Member, the increase has been even greater.
In the same travel-to-work area the increase in the number unemployed for over 12 months has been, since July 1979, 420 per cent.—that was before the figure announced last week. Clearly it is not a minor problem. It is not a matter of people who are unemployed for a few weeks, or four or five months, which would be bad enough.
In the West Midlands as a whole unemployment was also 5·1 per cent. in May 1979. The latest figure is 16·1 per cent., with 369,114 people registered as jobless. So that there is mass unemployment not only in areas where there has been long-standing unemployment. There was no such problem in the West Midlands. Naturally, it has many problems, but it did not have high unemployment. I am sure that no Conservative Member would wish to argue that the increased unemployment in my travel-to-work area and in the West Midlands as a whole is a coincidence, or the result of overseas difficulties, and so on. The fact is that very high interest rates, an overvalued pound, and a tight monetary policy have been responsible for factory closures, massive redundancies, and the misery and devastation that go with mass unemployment.
There is not much room for optimism. If I am told "You are a Labour Member", or "Trade unions do not want to express optimism", I reply that the same lack of optimism is felt by the regional CBI and the Birmingham chamber of commerce. They have both said that there is no sign of recovery in the West Midlands. The director of the Birmingham chamber of commerce said this week that the news was very depressing from the point of view of business and jobs. He said:
We cannot see where any upturn is going to come from in the foreseeable future.
The people who have been made unemployed have been hurt while they have been on the dole queue by the disgraceful 5 per cent. taken away because of taxation to come, although when unemployment benefit is subject to taxation, as from this month, the 5 per cent. is not restored. I cannot understand how members of the Cabinet, on their incomes, can justify taking away 5 per cent. from people who are unemployed, and who are living

on the barest minimum. That same Government abolished earnings-related benefit—which alone meant that the unemployed lost about £11 a week.
We need a change in policy, as was stressed in our debate on Tuesday. Without that change, unemployment will grow both nationally and in the West Midlands, and many more of our constituents will be denied the opportunity to earn their living. The Government had no mandate to bring mass unemployment to the country. They did not say in May 1979 that they intended to pursue these policies. Many people in the West Midlands, who voted Conservative, who made it possible for Conservative Party members to sit on the Government Benches, feel deeply betrayed. They believed the Prime Minister—then the Leader of the Opposition—and Conservative candidates when they said that certain policies would be pursued.
The situation now in the West Midlands is even worse than it was in the pre-war days. There will be no let-up in the region until there is an end of mass unemployment. Our objective is for people to find jobs and earn their living in the area which is the heartland of the engineering industry. That is our objective, and if it means the removal of this Government, the sooner that happens the better.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: That there has been devastation in industry in the West Midlands, there is, sadly, no dispute. Burton has been more fortunate. However, for the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to pretend that the causes have nothing to do with the years of bad Labour Governments encouraging bad union practices and bad management is extremely naive. The cure must be to do something about those deep-seated ills—as, I hope, this Government are doing.
However, I wish to raise another matter. Three months will have passed before we return, and I hope that by then the Lebanon war will be over, and that at least temporary peace will reign again in the Middle East. It might help to bring about that peace if the House did not adjourn before the Government took a slightly more realistic attitude to the longer-term Israeli-Arab conflict than the Government recently have taken.
The Government's somewhat unrealistic attitude can be summarised in the following way. They seem to believe that the Venice initiative is alive, when it is dead, and that Camp David is dead, when it is just alive. There is a tendency to draw an irrational distinction between the IRA and the PLO, so that it is absolutely wrong—as it is—to negotiate with the IRA, but that somehow it is less wrong, and perhaps to be encouraged, to negotiate and raise the status of the PLO. There is a belief that, despite evidence to the contrary, the Israeli Government have no concern for Palestinian rights to self-determination. There is a general lack of sympathy with Israel, which shows itself in an unwillingness to accept the moderate reports, and an overwillingness to accept the exaggerated reports, from the Lebanon. I shall give an example.
On 16 June, on the "Newsnight" programme, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:
We are told that half a million people (have been) made homeless (in South Lebanon) which has a devastating impact".
That statement was based on PLO claims. The next night, the Foreign Office advice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxen (Mr. Hurd), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was that
United Nations estimates are that in South Lebanon alone 200,000 have been displaced in their homes".


That is a substantial difference in the space of 24 hours. The comment on the second night was a little closer to reality than that of the first. The Israelis would ask why the Government, if they are friendly, do not accept the Israeli estimate that the figures were one-tenth of that. Certainly, in recent weeks, the numbers of the appalling casualties and the homeless in that part of the world turn out to be much nearer to the Israeli estimate than to that of the PLO.
Another example is the overwillingness—again, not justified by the evidence that has since emerged—to reject the Israeli claim that the PLO had stockpiled enough arms to destroy the State of Israel 10 times.
What is the new realism that I am asking of the Government? First, I ask for a realisation that there will be no settlement in the Middle East to which Israel does not agree, and support.
Secondly, if we in Britain want to persuade Israel to be more relaxed and flexible about the Palestinians, we stand no chance unless the Israelis respect our view, and they will not do so while they think that we are biased against them. They understand our support for Arab causes. It is based on a traditional and present trade relationship. Substantial orders have currently been placed by our Arab friends with Britain, and will help to get us out of our economic difficulties. It is based on close traditional ties in the Foreign Office with Arab countries. For every British ambassador to Israel who retires there are 22 British ambassadors to Arab countries who retire. So it is not surprising that there is a close affinity in the Foreign Office to the Arab countries. I do not think that the Israelis bear us any ill will because of our close ties with the Arab nations.
However, they appear to know what the Government have not shown much sign of knowing, that the Arab leaders believe that their interests would be much better served if the PLO ceased to exist than if its existence were encouraged. That is why no Arab country is rushing to help the PLO in its present plight.
Thirdly, there should be a realisation that Israel asks only for guaranteed security. It has been disappointed in the past by the failure of guarantees that have been given by the United Nations and others. If we want to make an effective contribution towards peace in the Middle East, we should be bending all our efforts to strengthening those guarantees and to ensuring that the Israelis can rely upon guarantees that the West provides for that security. If we do not do that, we cannot blame the Israelis for trying to establish those guarantees in their own way.
Fourthly, there should be a realisation that it is no use Britain being at odds with the United States over the Middle East. The United States realises that the survival of a democracy in the Middle East that is friendly to the West is necessary to safeguard world peace. If the PLO were given power to threaten the stability of Saudi Arabia, it would threaten the West's oil supplies with all that that would entail. Therefore, our interests are very much the same as those of the United States in the Middle East, and we should be careful not to cross it in its aims.
Fifthly, we should accept that Israel is concerned that the Palestinians should enjoy the right to self-determination. Under the Camp David accords, the Israel Government accepted clear obligations to the Palestinians. It accepted an obligation to negotiate with Egypt the establishment of a self-governing administrative council representing the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and

Gaza, chosen in free elections with wide powers. It accepted an obligation for the Israeli military Government and the civilian Administration to withdraw as soon as that self-governing authority had been freely elected. It accepted a transitional period of five years with negotiations between Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza, to determine the final status and relationship with its neighbours and to conclude a final peace treaty between Israel and Jordan.
It is not only absurd to pretend that the Israelis have no concern for Palestinian rights, but it flies in the face of the facts. Do the Israelis want to be outnumbered by Arabs in their State? That is patently absurd. That leads one to the second question, for if not, do they not realise that there can be no lasting peace while 1½ to 2 million Arabs have no home? If the Jordanians will not take them, they will have to find a home somewhere. The common sense is that the Israelis appreciate that the Palestinians must have a settled and peaceful relationship in Palestine or in the region. The Camp David accords have given them the only constructive suggestions for the achievement of that end.
It is true that the Camp David accords do not propose an immediate transfer of powers and that the transfer of powers is by stages, but, who are we, the British, to show no understanding for that course in the light of our recent colonial experience? Why should anyone doubt the good will of the Israelis towards their peaceful neighbours when they have given ample earnest of their good will over the surrender of Sinai and the destruction of Yammit? To go on talking as if the Israelis have no interest in Palestinian self-determination is not so much to play the ostrich as to play the mischief-maker.
With a more realistic and sympathetic attitude to Israel, British influence would be greater and the chance of peace in the Middle East would be considerably enhanced. Let us hear something of a change of attitude, if not in this debate, then at least as soon as possible after the House rises. The civilised world has everything to gain from a right-thinking British Government giving their support for every practicable peaceful measure in the Middle East.

Mr. James Lamond: The Summer Adjournment debate has followed its usual course this afternoon. We have had a lively and interesting series of debates which, unfortunately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you were unable to join us in listening to until about an hour ago.
When one listens to the various speeches, it is difficult not to be dragged into making some comment on them because most of them touch subjects on which we are all interested. With one brief exception I shall try to resist that temptation because time is moving on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) made an eloquent speech about unemployment in the Manchester area. As my constituency is in that area I should like to confirm, underline and support all that he said. There are 15,000 people now unemployed in Oldham. On my calculation, the Government must be spending between £150,000 and £200,000 every day of the week on unemployment benefit in Oldham. When one considers those figures, it brings home clearly the enormous expense to the community of having 3·2 million people out of work in Britain. I do not criticise the money that is paid in unemployment


benefit—far from it, because it is inadequate. However, I am criticising the complete and final loss of a very important British asset—its skilled work force.
With those words I pass to my point for the attention of the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House is a patient, intelligent and shrewd man. All hon. Members know that. He is shrewd enough to be able to have a good guess at the point that I want to raise. If he thinks that it is about the special session of the United Nations, he is correct.
I have raised that matter with the Leader of the House several times and he has answered me as kindly as he can. During the whole of the Session, since last November until today—and I suggest this will be the case even into the overlap at the end of October—it has not been possible to find time to discuss the special session of the United Nations on disarmament. That is despite all the subjects that we have discussed, the six special debates on the Falklands crisis and the many debates on unemployment.
It is four years since the first special session. It is an important enough subject to have attracted some attention in the House. The Prime Minister went to New York to address the special session. President Reagan addressed the special session. Mr. Gromyko spoke for the Soviet people and read a special message from President Brezhnev, and many other foreign Ministers and leaders of nations throughout the world attended. However, we have not been able to find half a day, before or after that session, to discuss what should be said or its outcome.
I have made those points already in your hearing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you, as well as the Leader of the House, may be weary of them. However, I should like to add a couple of points that have arisen since I last mentioned the matter.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, has visited Britain and had a meeting with the Prime Minister. There was a short report of what he said and how he felt after that meeting in the Sunday newspapers 10 days ago. Those who were interested enough to read those reports will have noticed that he was extremely pessimistic, not as a direct result of his meeting with the Prime Minister but because of the world situation and two matters in particular. The first has been touched on by one or two hon. Members this afternoon and that is the position in the Lebanon. It is extremely serious and if it drags on it could lead to the involvement of world Powers and, ultimately, to a world war. The United Nations Secretary-General regarded that as one of the most serious matters to have arisen since 1945.
The second cause of grave concern to him was the negative outcome of the United Nations special session on Disarmament. I had the privilege of attending sessions in 1978 and 1982. This year, I was struck by the wide participation of the public, through non-governmental organisations, in the special session. There were at least 10 times more people directly involved than in 1978. The very fine document that resulted from the first special session was not matched in any way by the document resulting from the second special session.
Such matters must concern us. I know that hon. Members have many other matters on their minds. Someone who continually preaches that world war is round the corner and that we are likely to be blown to smithereens any day will not be listened to happily. I can

understand that. It gives me no great pleasure to have to pass on this message to hon. Members, but they must realise that a most dangerous situation faces the world. All the other subjects that have been discussed this afternoon, even including the interesting speech about the imminent collapse of the banking system in the Western world, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), are not as important as the maintenance of the human race. The human race will be in jeopardy unless we are prepared. The human race will be in danger unless we are prepared to get down to concrete negotiations on disarmament. I am not alone in thinking that. The Leader of the House should realise that twice in the past year ¼ million people have been mobilised in Britain in demonstrations for peace. Is there any other subject—whether trade union legislation, or reform Bills—that could muster two such demonstrations a year? There have been enormous demonstrations, not only in Britain but throughout Western Europe.
I participated in a demonstration of at least 1 million people in New York when I was there for the special session. The people came from every part of society. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) had the honour to address the meeting and was extremely well received. He preached the same message as I preach—that it is essential to sink the political differences between ourselves and the Socialist countries in Eastern Europe and to get down to discussing the survival of the world.
Fortunately, we live in a democratic country and the peace movement can express its views. However, that is not so everywhere. Turkey is a fellow member of NATO, an organisation set up to defend what we believe to be the best way of life. As a democrat, I strongly support that view. However, the Turkish Peace Association has seen its members arrested and placed on trial. At this moment its members face the death sentence for nothing more or less than participating in the peace movement and trying to bring home to Turkey the same message that we can peacefully bring home in Britain.
I should have liked an opportunity—apart from that offered now—to debate these matters. The Leader of the House will probably say that I could have raised the matter during the debate on the Defence Estimates. I tried to do so but it was a ragged and unfortunate debate for me, because only about one other hon. Member was interested in this subject. Most of the debate consisted of demands for more and more expenditure on armaments. We should find time for a debate on this subject. We could then discuss, perhaps, the interesting issue of the cost of civil defence and so on.
There is much in the point that was raised about civil defence, but it should be borne in mind that boroughs and towns up and down the country that have declared themselves nuclear-free zones and said that they will not participate in nuclear civil defence expenditure and in organising such affairs have done so from the best possible motives. They want to show the rest of the world that at least in Britain there are people who will speak out for peace and who will make a cry from the heart, asking that the rest of the world should focus its attention on this vital issue. We should begin by holding a proper debate on the subject so that people can see that we take it seriously.

Mr. Les Huckfield: I warmly support the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks.
I am glad to have the opportunity to raise certain matters internal to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. To some hon. Members it may seem an insignificant matter, but it should be raised because what should be one of our most significant public institutions is, I fear, fast becoming the object of major national concern. I thought long and hard about whether to raise this subject in this way, as adverse comment could affect people's attitudes to the society and their willingness to give money to it. However, having tried every other means at the disposal of an hon. Member, and being convinced that bad publicity in continual newspaper reports could affect the RSPCA far more adversely than anything that I could say, I decided that it was only right to pursue the subject tonight.
I am greatly concerned about what could transpire between now and October. That is why I thought it fitting to raise the issue today. There can be few governing councils which, despite a vote of no confidence, have still met during the lunch break as this one did at the annual general meeting on 26 June to re-elect themselves. There was a simple re-election during the lunch break despite the vote of no confidence in the entire council.
There was such a rumpus at the annual general meeting that the president had to switch off the microphone and thus break up the meeting. We now discover that the 1980 annual financial report has still not been properly approved and we understand that the society was £1·5 million in debt in 1981. Hardly any of the major executive officers have remained in post. The executive director, the inspectorate controller and the finance controller were sacked in March. The executive director, Mr. Julian Hopkins, was not only on a salary of £22,000 per annum, but left amidst allegations of international air travel with his wife and family and of occupying a magnificent Queen Anne home called Roffey Place, adjoinging the training centre. He should have been paying a market rent of about £6,000 a year but paid only a small fraction of that.
In addition, the staff at the RSPCA passed a vote of no confidence in the management. There are numerous other allegations of financial malpractice. Therefore, such serious matters cannot be left until October. Nothing I say can damage the society as much as it has been damaged already by reports of those occurrences. The Times on 15 May this year printed a story about a Sussex police inquiry into the RSPCA. The Guardian of 28 June carried a story headed "RSPCA thrown into chaos". The Times of 29 October last year headed a story "Expulsion increases conflict in RSPCA". I could give a number of other headlines which have appeared in national newspapers. I make those few references to underline the point that publicity continues to damage the society's interests. Similar stories are repeated throughout the country in local newspapers where they often cause even more damage.
We are not talking about a small organisation, but about a society that is supposed to be a public charity with a budget of £9 million, employing about 600 people and with a membership of more than 30,000. Legacies make up about 70 per cent. of the society's income. It is a substantial public organisation.
Many of us who are members of the society—I think I am still a member—are convinced that the society will find itself in great difficulty if it tries to cure or mend itself. Inquiries have taken place in the past and produced little result. I refer to the internal investigation in 1974 by Charles Sparrow QC, the 1980 internal investigation by Thomas Field-Fisher QC and the internal report on the 1980 accounts by the accountants Binder Hamlyn. Arising from this, when one of the leading members of the governing council tried to take some of those matters further he was expelled from the society for his pains.
It is just as bad at branch level. I took a deputation to see the Charity Commissioners on 14 September. They were extremely good in the amount of time that they gave to us. I referred to them, on behalf of my constituents Dr. Roger and Mrs. Margaret House, several serious irregularities in the way in which regional elections had been conducted. Those allegations included interference with elections by officials and employees of the society. I took Mr. and Mrs. Graham Page from Newark and referred to the Charity Commissioner the rather devastating affair of the East Nottinghamshire branch where almost the entire branch membership was expelled from the society. That was done without any apparent internal investigation. There were serious financial discrepancies alleged in that branch. Complaint was made that a new annual general meeting was then held which was inaccessible to most of the previous members.
I took Mr. and Mrs. Page and my constituents to the Charity Commissioners after they had tried hard within the society to secure some redress for their complaints. The Charity Commissioners told us at that meeting that they were able to do very little about internal matters. They wrote to me on 24 September saying:
It seems to us that these are all essentially questions of administration which are outside the scope of our jurisdiction and that to set up a formal inquiry would be an abuse of our powers.
I submitted further evidence to the Charity Commissioners including the sudden appearance of £6,000 in the funds of one branch. It has been difficult to make any progress with the Charity Commissioners. Among the matters I raised was the fact that the society has the right to expel any member. First, the society told me that I was a life member. Then it told me that I was not a member. I am pretty sure that after today I shall not be a member of the RSPCA.
After making no progress with the Charity Commissioners, on 19 April I wrote to the Attorney-General asking whether he would receive a petition gathered by Mr. and Mrs. House and others requesting an independent inquiry into the RSPCA. The petition contains no fewer than 10,000 signatures. I was told by the Attorney-General's office to try the Home Secretary. I wrote to the Home Secretary. On 25 May he replied:
The only Minister having any standing in these matters is the Attorney-General.
I wrote again to the Attorney-General. On 22 June he replied:
The matter would appear to be an internal one which can only be resolved through the RSPCA procedures.
Since then I have put down a number of parliamentary questions asking about ministerial responsibility for the Charity Commissioners and matters affecting the RSPCA. I put one question to the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister about the allocation of responsibility for the Charity Commissioners, between the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, again, I am afraid, to no avail.
I have sought to initiate Adjournment debates about ministerial responsibility for the Charity Commissioners—I do not blame you for this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but unfortunately I have not been able to do so. When my constituents and members of the society are pilloried in that way an hon. Member has a duty to raise the matter in the House when every other avenue would seem to have been explored. I cannot stand by and see my constituents and others insulted and publicly pilloried. There is a wider public interest. We are talking about a significant major national public institution. We are not talking about a small private money-making organisation.
I submit to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that the Government cannot stand back any longer with matters deteriorating and disintegrating within the RSPCA. I hope that he will accept what I say, and that such matters cannot be left until October because by then they will have become even worse. There will be far more bad publicity in the press and media which will alter radically people's attitudes towards giving money to the RSPCA. I hope that the Leader of the House will use his good offices as soon as possible to prompt the Home Secretary and the Attorneyn-General, both of whom have overall responsibility for the Charity Commissioners, and press for a full independent investigation into the internal affairs of the RSPCA which cannot be left any longer. It cannot be left without a serious mention before the House rises.

Mr. Thomas Cox: I wish to raise the subject of Cyprus. It is now eight years since Cyprus was brutally invaded by Turkey and the suffering exists still. Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth. Sadly, it sees little attempt being made by the Government either to rid the island of the Turkish troops or to play any part in creating once again a united Cyprus.
When the Turkish army invaded, many people were forced to leave their homes, lands and possessions for their own safety. We are aware of the tradegy of the hundreds of people in Cyprus who are listed as missing. Despite all the evidence that exists—names, addresses and occupations—and is readily available the Turkish authorities have said nothing whatever about where those people are. Hon. Members should try to understand the enormous personal tradegy for the many Cypriot people whose loved ones have been missing for such a long time, with no attempt being made by the Turkish authorities to state their whereabouts.
Many thousands of Turkish troops are in the occupied northern area of Cyprus. They have vast supplies of military equipment. It is time that the Government stated what action they intend to take to get those troops out of Cyprus. In the past few years they have done very little. After we sent the task force to the Falkland Islands 8,000 miles away, the Prime Minister repeatedly stated that people have a right to live in freedom. That applies equally to the Cypriot people.
Over the years when we have debated the question of Cyprus, Ministers have stated that the problem is difficult but we should have confidence in the inter-communal talks, which are the basis for settlement. Sadly, no one believes that any longer. The talks are still ticking over but no one has confidence in them.
At the end of last year, with other colleagues, I visited Cyprus. We did not seek narrow consultations; we visited Greek and Turkish areas. It was clear that the military junta that operates from Ankara will decide the future of Cyprus. Unless pressure is put on it, it will show no interest in an honourable settlement involving Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The Prime Minister many times said that a Fascist dictatorship controlled Argentina. A similar and evil regime exists in Turkey, but Turkey is a member of NATO and Britain does not seek to do anything to upset a fellow member of NATO. But we must face the fact that we are a guarantor Power for Cyprus, and Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth.
Cypriot people will not indefinitely allow their country to be occupied. The time may soon come when we are put under increasing pressure over the future of our military bases in Cyprus. The moment that the good will of the Cypriot people to allow the bases to continue ends, serious problems will arise. The Cypriot people feel that the Government have had ample opportunity to show their interest in Cyprus and perhaps they should take action to force them to put pressure on the Fascist junta in Ankara. I do not wish that to happen, but Cypriot people discuss with me what they should do. They feel that they have been patient for eight years and have had no response. The problem is crucial for us and I hope that the Leader of the House will take it seriously.
I wish to draw attention to two other issues. First, one of the Governments' most stupid decisions was to increase fees for overseas students. Cyprus has been badly affected. Many young Cypriots used to come here to study. They felt that Britain was the natural place to come. Many of the Greek and Turkish community leaders furthered their education by coming to Britain. But fewer and fewer Cypriots now come. Instead, they go to the United States or Eastern Europe. We are losing the contacts and good will that were built up by their coming here. The Leader of the House is fair-minded. I hope that in the next Session the Government will examine the issue closely.
Secondly, after the invasion many Cypriots came here. More Cypriots live in Britain than in any other country, apart from Cyprus. The people who came here had friends and relatives in Britain. They have presented no problems or burdens for the authorities, but it appears that pressure is starting to be put on them by the Home Office to leave Britain. These people were forced out of their homes in the north of Cyprus. If they are forced to leave here they have nowhere to go in Cyprus. The Cypriot community and the House is entitled to know whether action is being taken against these Cypriot men and women who have lived here for a long time. If the Leader of the House cannot deal with all the points that I have raised this evening, I ask him to ensure that his right hon. Friends are made aware of them.
Many hon. Members are deeply committed to the rights of Cypriot people. I emphasise the words "Cypriot people", be they Greeks or Turks. Unfortunately, successive Governments—the Labour Government as much as this Government—have not been as responsible as they should have been towards Cyprus. As long as I am a Member of the House, I shall use every opportunity to keep Governments fully aware that they have a crucial responsibility to see that as soon as possible the Turkish Army and its equipment leave Cyprus and that Cyprus is united once again, so that men and women can live together in peace, as most of the Cypriots wish to do.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The House should not adjourn until the Government have made a statement to the effect that they do not intend to continue the process of destroying the capacity of the British Steel industry to produce the steel which this country needs and which the steel industry is well able to produce.
Today the shadow of 2,000 redundancies hangs over two major steel firms in Sheffield—one in the private sector and one in the public sector—which already has 40,000 unemployed. When the Government came to office the level of unemployment in Sheffield was about 4·5 per cent. It is now close to 14 per cent. Although we have heard more terrifying figures than that in the debate, the Leader of the House should be aware that that figure is part of the Government's outrageous and disgraceful record.
The problem in Sheffield is that for the past two years the Government have been pursuing a policy of steadily reducing the capacity of the steel industry to produce the goods for which Sheffield is internationally famous. That is being done by a series of mergers, hiving off and rearranging, under the code name of Phoenix. Phoenix 1 has been carried through. A company called Allied Steel and Wire Ltd, which is a merger of the interests of Guest Keen and Nettlefold and the British Steel Corporation, has been created. Phoenix 2 seems to have run into the sand or got lost. It would involve strip mills and bar mills in North Wales, the Midlands and Yorkshire, although it is not clear whether the private sector is as keen now on the operation as it was at one time.
I am most directly concerned with Phoenix 3. It involves two famous major steelworks in Sheffield—Firth Brown in the private sector and the River Don works, which belongs to the British Steel Cororation, in the public sector. Those two famous and efficient steel-forging companies are apparently destined to be merged, although the trade unions and the men who produce the steel—the men who do the work and operate highly complex and valuable equipment—are not being consulted and informed about what is going on. There are all sorts of rumours and stories. There is a belief that in the middle of August the axe will come down and the workers will be presented with the usual fait accompli and told that probably 2,000 jobs will go and the two firms will be merged.
It is absolutely disgraceful that the men whose livelihood is at stake and on whose skill and ability the production of the steel depends are not being consulted about the merger, if it is to take place, and are not being told what the consequences will be for jobs and for this country with regard to the production of specialised heavy forgings, which are necessary in certain sectors of the industry.
Perhaps the workers in those firms—the highly skilled engineers, scientists, machinists, operators and others—have alternative ideas. They are not looking forward to the merger. Neither the Firth Brown men nor the River Don men approve of it. They do not in any way look forward to the possible loss of 2,000 jobs in a city where 40,000 people are unemployed. If it was properly consulted, the work force in River Don and Firth Brown might come up with alternative ideas and suggest alternative markets where those firms could find an outlet for their products.
The works are not old-fashioned or producing things that are out of date or not needed. I quote from the annual report of the British Steel Corporation which was published recently. It states that the River Don works has
continued to attract new customers and to increase its order intake as a result of product and process development.
What is the firm producing? It produces pressure vessels for AGRs, the most advanced nuclear power stations in this country, components for nuclear-powered submarines, which I should have thought would appeal to the Government, although it does not greatly appeal to me, and, more important, cast steel nodes for offshore oil rigs, which are an essential requirement for further exploration in the North Sea, on which the prosperity of this country depends. Those products are designed for the most advanced and important industries in this country. They are not produced by a firm or by men whose work is out of date or not needed by the United Kingdom in the 1980s and 1990s.
The same can be said for Firth Brown. Over the past few years Firth Brown has installed millions of pounds worth of the most technically advanced equipment in Europe for forging work. It is responsible for part of the work on turbine blades for some of our most advanced aero engines. The recession in the aircraft industry has had a backlash on Firth Brown.
Those firms have a tremendous technological capacity for the most advanced work in the steel industry. The Government's only objective appears to be ruthless and savage cuts in the steel-making capacity of the United Kingdom. They have been making such cuts for the best part of two and a half years.
The Government will argue that if steel companies want to survive they must be competitive. In 1981–82 BSC produced 14 million tonnes of liquid steel, which was 1 per cent. short of its target, despite the country's economic difficulties. Its exports rose from 2·3 million tonnes to 2·7 million tonnes. The price of steel rose by 8 per cent. over the 1978–79 figure, whereas the general price rise in manufacturing industry has been 29 per cent.
Overmanning is one of the favourite stories of the Government. Since 1977 the steel industry has reduced its work force from 208,000 to 100,000. The figure is still decreasing. There has been a 50 per cent. increase in productivity in BSC over the past four years. The figures from 1979 to 1981 show that in 1979 there were 13·2 man hours per tonne of steel produced, but that figure has been brought down to 9·6 man hours per tonne. The process of continuous casting, which is vital to the modernisation of the steel industry, has been extended. Whereas it was 22 per cent. of capacity a little while ago, it has been pushed up to 28 per cent., and the level is still increasing. Despite the ferocious difficulties that have been inflicted on the steel industry by the Government's energy pricing policy with regard to electricity, energy consumption per tonne of steel made has been reduced by 12 per cent. during the past year.
Another excuse that the Government constantly advance about the future of British industry is the demand for higher and higher wages. This year, steel workers have been given no national pay increase. One can go no lower than that. The only increases that have been secured at plant level by plant bargaining have been the strict basis of what the chairman of the British Steel Corporation


called "Something for something". In other words, the only increase in pay has been for a direct increase in output.
The British Steel Corporation and the private steel industry have had to cope with a rising tide of imports that the Government are prepared to do nothing about. About 100,000 tonnes of steel is imported each week. It does not come from Third world countries. Imports from those countries are minor or negligible. The major sources of imports are our so-called Common market partners. They are causing serious difficulties for the Sheffield steel industry.
What is the reward for all the effort in productivity and pay restraint and the efforts that the BSC has made in the past two or three years to modernise and increase output and efficiency? There have been 600 redundancies in stainless steel and there is a prospect of 2,000 more redundancies in the forthcoming merger between Firth Brown and the River Don works. We are being shut out of the United States market. There have been savage cuts in capacity and, apparently, more are contemplated. Above all, the workers are being treated with contempt in the merger negotiations between Firth Brown and the River Don works. They are being given no information, they are not being consulted and they are being given no opportunity to bring their expertise and knowledge to bear on the future of the industry.
Before the House rises for the Summer Recess the Government should, at the minimum, give an assurance that the representatives of workers in the two major steel firms in Sheffield—Firth Brown and the River Don works—should be brought fully into the consultations about matters that vitally affect their future and the capacity of the United Kingdom steel industry to provide the steel that the nation needs, not only today, but in the next 10 years.

Mr. John Browne: May I remind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the recent debate on the Middle East concentrated upon the Israel-PLO problem and the problem of Beirut. There was little or no mention of the severe escalation of threats and the military weapon systems on the Israeli-Syrian front. Nor was there much mention of Russian designs on the Middle East.
I believe that the escalation now taking place on the Israel-Syrian front is so serious that my right hon. Friend will be ill-advised to allow the House to rise before the matter has been debated. The escalation has two aspects. The first is the escalation of military hardware, the second is the escalation in software in terms of manpower, and the threatening words from both Governments, that are now reaching a most ominous pitch.
I shall deal with military hardware first. In late June, the Israelis, sometimes using remotely piloted vehicles, exposed a serious weakness in the Soviet, heat-seeking SAM 6 missile that is used by Syria. On 24 June, Syria used the SAM 8 missile which was probably operated by Soviet advisers. There are some 4,000 of them in Syria at the moment.
As my right hon. Friend will know, SAM 8 is a highly sophisticated missile and has a tactical nuclear capability. Its use represents a quantum jump in the level of Syrian

weapons systems. Furthermore, on 26 July, The Times referred to the fact that Syria has 12 batteries of Soviet Scud surface-to-surface missiles, which have a 500 kilotonne nuclear capability. My right hon. Friend will know that the C type Scud has a range of about 450 miles.
With regard to software and threatening words, I shall note one extremely serious development. The Syrians are now threatening to use "previously unused weapons" on Israeli population centres. That threat is consistent with intelligence reports that say that the Syrians have threatened to use surface-to-surface missiles on Israeli population centres. On the Israeli side, there have been suspicions for some time that Israelis have been developing a nuclear capability. I shall quote the words of Mr. Dan Meridor. He said that
the very gravest consequences would lie on the shoulders of the Syrian Government if it fulfilled its threat to retaliate against Israel with 'all types of weapons'.
He expressed the hope that the Syrian threat to strike at Israeli population centres was nothing more than words. However, he added most ominously that the Syrian Government would
know very well what any such move would mean".
It has long been realised that Russia has vital and strong designs on the Middle East. In keeping with its strategy of fishing in troubled waters, I believe that Russia is now escalating alarmingly the war on the Israeli-Syrian front. Indeed, the escalation is beginning to hint, on both sides of the conflict, of the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons. I ask my right hon. Friend once again: does he believe that it is wise for us to go into recess without a debate on this issue urging the super Powers to de-escalate this high-risk situation?

Mr. Charles R. Morris: This debate marks the closing stages of a parliamentary Session that has undoubtedly been, and will be considered to have been, historically significant. It is perhaps right and inevitable that as we look back over the Session our minds turn from the determination, professionalism and courage of the British Service men in the South Atlantic to the major and crucially important economic battle that still confronts the nation and to which the Government's policies seem to be making little or no contribution.
I have listened to every speech in the debate so far, and I have been impressed by many speeches from my right hon. and hon. Friends. I listened attentively to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) and Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond). The theme that has consistently run through those speeches was the problem of the consistently run through those speeches was the problem of the contraction and the virtual collapse of manufacturing industry which has now manifested itself in some regions of Britain. I noticed the emphasis that all of my hon. Friends rightly placed on the increasing unemployment figures. I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said about the contraction in the textile industry, which is now evident in his constituency and the problem of growing unemployment in an area where there is no industrial conflict. Keighley is a reasonable, hard-working community of low-wage earners. The same is true of Oldham, Sheffield and the other areas that have been identified.
I noted particularly the plea for assisted area status from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley as he drew attention to the fact that from 1 August Manchester and a host of other areas will lose assisted area status. That will indeed be a black day. My hon. Friend emphasised the situation in Manchester, but 16 areas in the north-west will lose assisted area status. They include Preston, Clitheroe, Burnley, Blackburn, Bury, Warrington, Manchester, Oldham, Ashton, Macclesfield, Crewe and Chester. Yet all those areas have reported increased and growing unemployment.
Perhaps those areas could bear the burden of the loss of assisted area status more easily if they were less mindful of what I can only describe as the growing concern about political gerrymandering that seems to be a factor in the allocation of assisted area status. While all those areas are losing assisted area status, one area—Blackpool—will achieve that status on 1 August. Yet unemployment in Blackpool is 13 per cent.—appreciably lower than the average of 16·2 per cent. in the north-west and lower even than the national average of 13·2 per cent. How does one explain that to areas that will now lose any power at all to attract new industry? That aspect of the matter should be seriously examined.
Let us consider the level of unemployment in some of the areas that are to lose assisted area status. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East has pointed out many times the problems of his area. In Oldham, for every vacancy at the local jobcentre there are 164 unemployed. That is a staggering figure. In Wigan, the figure is 116 and in St Helen's it is 81. Yet those areas are to lose assisted area status in order presumably, that Blackpool may have it.
We are told that assisted area status is determined by travel-to-work areas. In this context, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan) for forwarding to me a letter that he received from the Minister of State, Department of Employment, explaining how unemployment statistics for travel-to-work areas are arrived at. It states:
The present TTWA network was last reviewed in 1978 using data about people's actual commuting patterns from the 1971 Census of Population".
If assisted area status is determined on that basis it is about time that the Government brought their statistics up to date and adopted more realistic policies to deal with the crucial problem of growing unemployment in the regions.
My hon. Friend the member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) referred to the almost inflexible policy of the Home Office towards Iranians seeking to enter this country and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North referred to the serious problems faced by Iranian students who may be returned to what he rightly described as a reign of terror in that unfortunate country. I hope that the Leader of the House will convey to his colleagues the deep concern of the Opposition that the Home Secretary and the Home Office generally should adopt a more humane attitude to those people.
My hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) and Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. It is a matter of great concern that, eight years after the invasion, many Greek Cypriots still yearn to know what happened to their husbands and families. I have listened to the responses of Ministers to both my hon. Friends on this throughout the Session. I hope that the Prime Minister and the Government will

bring to bear on the problem of missing people arising out of that conflict the same enthusiasm that they have shown in relation to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The two situations are analogous—save that Britain was a guarantor Power in relation to Cyprus.
Opposition Members, and even Government Members, have referred to the Leader of the House in the most charitable terms. He was described as able and as a man of integrity and intelligence. In responding to the speeches that have been made today, he will need all those qualities. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) suggested that the Leader of the House might change the attitude of the bishops and clergy of the Church of England. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) then suggested that the Leader of the House should put right the problems of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. With those two remits alone, the Leader of the House will need all the qualities that he no doubt possesses.

8 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) said that we have just come through seven months of extremely hard and taxing work. It has been dominated by the South Atlantic affair and that experience has very much sustained the reputation of the Chamber and the House as a means of national debate when the country is confronted with great and mighty issues.
However, we are now approaching a recess and the motion suggests that we should go away for 79 clear days, which is slightly less than the average of recent years but which none the less will be profoundly welcome. This matter was obliquely referred to by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) in comparing the holidays of Members of Parliament with others, but there is simply no anology between the length of a recess and the holiday for a Member of Parliament. Just as I do not believe that the House is at its best when overdominated by legislation, so I do not believe that politics is at its best if concentrated merely at Westminster. There is a great deal to be said for the chance to take one's politics to the sticks.
This has been a wide-ranging debate and I suppose it is something of a collector's piece because, as a result of the recent procedural decisions of the House, this will be the last time that this debate will be conducted precisely in this form. Traditionalists may feel that the old form has been underscored by the way matters have been conducted this afternoon, but however this debate proceeds in future it will have one characteristic, touched on by the right hon. Member for Openshaw—the assumed omnipotence and omniscience of the Leader of the House. Every conceivable problem is thrown upon him for instant consideration and resolution.
I was particularly heartened by the realism of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). He said that I could not conceivably have answers for all the points raised but that it was important to ensure that they were referred to the relevant Government Department. I confirm that the whole debate will be considered and the various sections will be referred to the appropriate Government Departments so that the issues raised may receive due consideration.
Inevitably in such a debate it is difficult to form a structure since the problems range so widely, but it will


assist the House if I first answer the points raised that have a regional or constituency consideration, secondly, those that touch upon national issues and, finally, the problems of international affairs that have also featured in the debate.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to county courts in Northern Ireland. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Solicitor-General has already expressed, on the Lord Chancellor's behalf, his assurances that the resources of the Northern Ireland court service are suffficient to cope with any effects of the increase in jurisdiction of the county courts in Northern Ireland. I should add that it takes up to a year for any staffing effects to be felt in full. If these changes create a greater burden than expected, it will be possible to make any necessary staff adjustments in step with the changing load of procedure, which is working satisfactorily in England and Wales.
As regards court accommodation, each county court division has at least one major court building capable of accommodating any overspill work. In addition, a second programme of building works means that within a year eight county court buildings will have been expanded and further projects are already in hand.
The order giving effect to the jurisdictional changes in Northern Ireland, and bringing them into line with the arrangements in England and Wales, was laid before Parliament on 4 May, but I understand that no prayers were made against it. Nevertheless, I undertake to bring the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman to the attention of the Lord Chancellor and to ask him to write to the right hon. Gentleman.
A series of avowedly constituency points were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham). He referred to the involvement of Melton borough council with working parties on the disposal of spoil from the Vale of Belvoir. My hon. Friend has tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who will be replying tomorrow. I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's reply.
My hon. Friend also spoke about the Melton Mowbray relief road. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport received the inspector's report relating to the Leicester county council's proposal for the Melton Mowbray inner relief road on 7 June. The county council proposal is a complex matter in a sensitive area, relating to a side roads order, a compulsory purchase order, applications to demolish several listed buildings and an application for a certificate that land which forms part of an open space is needed and that the giving in exchange of other land is unnecessary. My right hon. Friends are carefully considering the report and will jointly issue a decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The drama of Parliament.

Mr. Biffen: Yes, this is the drama of Parliament. This is the very stuff of these debates year after year. I in no sense disparage the fact that I am asked to deal with relations in the Middle East on the one hand and the A52 at Bottesford and Muston on the other.
As regards the A52, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is well aware from the questions that he has put to him of the need for the two schemes and my hon. Friend's interest in them. The consulting engineer's

report on a bypass for Bottesford has now been received and my right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement later this year. As for the improvement at Muston, orders under the Highways Act have been made and a draft compulsory purchase order has been published. How quickly the scheme can progress will depend on whether there are objections to the draft order.
My hon. Friend also referred to the A6—the Quorn and Mountsorrell bypass. I understand that my hon. Friend has recently met my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport about the scheme. I can assure my hon. Friend, as she did, that the Department is pressing ahead as quickly as possible with the preparation of the scheme and the associated revocation of the old bypass line.
Perhaps I may now turn to matters that are more congenial to the right hon. Member for Openshaw. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) made a powerful speech about the acute problems of unemployment in Manchester. He said that the rate for male unemployment was over 18 per cent. and that Manchester was not receiving assistance under the regional assistance scheme. The same point was argued in regard to their own constituencies by the hon. Member for Keighley and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
I can add little to the statement made recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry about the regional map, so to speak, and the amount of aid that is being distributed. The case that the hon. Member for Blackley portrayed of an aid programme that has little relationship to the areas of sharpest industrial recession cannot be gainsaid. The recession has affected many of the areas that traditionally have been impervious to such events, and I cite the West Midlands which I know the hon. Gentleman has at heart. Nevertheless, the point is taken and it was powerfully argued by the hon. Member for Blackley.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) spoke of the difficulties caused by 17,500 council properties being handed over to the Hackney borough council and the alleged shortcomings of the Hackney borough council in coping. The hon. Member has discussed the matter before. His speech was the more moving for his stories illustrating the difficulties. I shall ensure that what he says is relayed to the Department of the Environment so that it can consider whether an inquiry is needed.
One of the clutch of issues raised by the hon. Member for Keighley was the multi-fibre arrangement and the current negotiations. I cannot add to what is already known. This is the last time for a while that the House will be able to consider the issue. The European Commission has initialled 13 bilateral arrangements under the multi-fibre arrangement. I accept that they cause the least difficulty. The great debate will take place with Hong Kong, Korea and Macau about the cuts required in the Commission's negotiation document. The Commission expects to report to the Council of Ministers in September and the report will be considered in October. The matter will be topical when the House resumes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) referred to an issue of deep public disquiet—the recent IRA terrorism in the capital. The House will join my hon. Friend in welcoming the evidence that the latest events may have an impact on drying up or impeding American funds flowing to the Irish Republic.
The House has recently considered and judged whether the death penalty should apply to terrorist murder. That issue could be considered again in the autumn if hon. Members seek to use the opportunities available.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) referred to the immigration rules and he was kind enough to tell me in advance that that was his intention. He talked of the Government's treatment of Iranians compared with their treatment of Poles. The Government decided, in conjunction with other Western nations, that the imposition of martial law in Poland justified the exercise of exceptional treatment towards Polish nationals. The situation is under continuous review, as are the circumstances of Iranians in the United Kingdom who express a fear of returning to Iran. In appropriate cases of both nationalities asylum is granted. My right hon. Friend is always prepared to consider individual exceptional cases on their merits. I shall draw my hon. Friend's attention to what has been said.

Mr. Clinton Davis: There seems to be an illogicality. The Leader of the House has drawn attention to martial law in Poland. With all its objections, martial law in Poland cannot begin to measure up to the saga of tyranny and oppression in Iran. How can a distinction be drawn? All Poles are treated on one basis and Iranians are treated selectively.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to concede the difficulty when one must apply value judgments about the unacceptable nature of overseas regimes and how that affects immigration rules.
The Home Secretary has considered applications for asylum in the United Kingdom by South African citizens in accordance with the standard practice for all asylum seekers. Active opposition to apartheid is taken into account with other factors peculiar to South Africa.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) discussed the Church of England and the police force. As Lord President of the Council, I am ex officio a Church Commissioner, but that does not validate any comment of mine or what I can sensibly observe. I think that my hon. Friend speaks for a larger number of people outside the House than we sometimes care to admit. In history, the established Church has often become part of the current fashion. I speak particularly of the eighteenth century. The doubt in the Church today cannot be dismissed as something which is of no concern to the House. I regret that we have less formal authority over Church of England affairs than we had when I first came to the House. I do not think that I should use the privilege of standing at the Dispatch Box to give my own views about the Church of England, but I thoroughly enjoyed listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) called for a rural policy. I am sure that the House will consider that when it returns in the autumn. A Select Committee has just reported on rural policy. The questions of rural depopulation, the change in the social character of the countryside and other matters are of concern to people from rural areas. I look forward to my hon. Friend, having rehearsed his anxieties, returning recharged from the recess and making the topic an occasion for a major debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) drew attention to the issue of the Soviet gas

pipeline. He did so commendably in that he argued—I do not wish to put words into his mouth—for more sympathetic understanding of the American point of view. One does not hear too many voices raised at the moment asking for a more sympathetic hearing of the American point of view, particularly on this matter. I hope that that debate goes further. The Government are deeply disturbed by what is implicit in what the United States Government is now proposing because it affects existing contracts. It also postulates an extension in the scope of American-inspired jurisdiction outside the United States of America. I also hope that Americans themselves will reflect upon the anxieties that this is causing in Western Europe because it means that a great many countries trying to seek a partnership with American technology cannot be too sure in the future whether they will have the degree of sovereign action and freedom that they now think they possess. However, my hon. friend made a persuasive case from a different point of view from the one which I have just put. I wish him well in trying to ensure that the debate is even-handed.
My hon. Friend for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) raised what is undoubtedly a matter of major importance—civil defence. He will appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) proposes to raise the issue on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, immediately after this motion is disposed of. Any few faltering comments of mine would be but chaff against the rich grains that will come when the Minister replies to the debate later this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) described some of the difficulties that have affected people with spinal injuries. Doubtless he was drawing on his experience of the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital. I noted the major points that he listed and I undertake to bring them to the attention of the Department of Health and Social Security and, indeed, to the other Government Departments, as he requested.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) raised the issue of the Charity Commissioners and the RSPCA. I am rather fastidious about my controversies. I have kept away from this quite exceptionally fierce and divisive affair. The hon. Gentleman had every authority to raise the matter. I understand that he was originally hoping to do so in the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriations) Bill. I undertake to ensure that he will receive in written form the answer that he would have received had he pursued his original intention. That answer will be with him as speedily as possible.
I turn now to the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). He had said that he would like to discuss the reorganisation of the steel industry in the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. Six o'clock in the evening is immensely more attractive than four o'clock in the morning, so I quite understand why he made a tactical adjustment. However, in the process, he has deprived himself of the priceless jewel of a ministerial answer from the Department of Industry, only to be left with a few passing observations from me. Once again, as in the case of his hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, I will ensure that he receives a more comprehensive reply. I hope that he will agree with me that, whatever the heartaches and difficulties of contraction in the steel industry, the difficulties of the steel


industry today would have been much nore seriously compounded if there had never been the rationalisation and contraction of earlier years.
I turn now to the areas of international concern. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) spoke of the need for a further debate on the general disarmament proposals and discussions at the United Nations. I understand his feelings on the subject. He certainly made his own potted contribution to this debate, which was a condensed but none the less profoundly effective edition of the speech that he would contribute to that specialised debate for which I am never able to find time, and to which he is never able to persuade his Front Bench to devote a Supply day. Between us, we have our problems. I say to the hon. Gentleman that come the Queen's Speech there will be endless days of general debate as we square up for the last Session before the political drama of the general election. I know that his voice will not be missing in urging the virtues of general disarmament. I shall be fascinated to see how many he can take with him.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) all referred to the Middle East. The hon. Member for Walsall, North described succinctly the agony of the present situation. Part of the agony is that, however deeply committed we feel to trying to resolve these matters, the level of our effective competence is extremely limited. Whatever we do is likely to be done only in concert with others of a broadly similar view and with similar economic and political interests. The immediate objective has been set out by the Government, and that is an Israeli withdrawal under the terms of Security Council resolutions 508 and 509.
The problem becomes infinitely more intractable when we consider the longer term. It can be encapsulated in the rather easy phrase of reconciling Israel's rights to security and the Palestinian's right to self-determination. I suspect that the hard and unrewarding search for something in that direction will occupy the mind of the House and the effective action of many others over not merely months but possibly years ahead.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton delivered a measured case but one that was unmistakably sympathetic to that of Israel. I am only sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was not in his place. If my hon. Friend had been present, we could have had a mini diversion. I was appreciative of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester for drawing the attention of the House to some of the implications of the sort of weaponry that is now being given use in the Israeli area of the conflict.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend urge the Government to urge the two super Powers to bend their efforts to de-escalate the system that is rapidly escalating in the area?

Mr. Biffen: I can assure my hon. Friend that his remarks will be drawn to the attention of the Foreign Office.
The hon. Members for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) and Tooting (Mr. Cox) both drew attention to the problems of Cyprus. The hon. Member for Tooting said that he hpoed that the British Government would be committed to a

policy of a unified Cyprus. I am sure that both hon. Members will appreciate that they have used their undoubted advocacy on successive Governments and that the behaviour of those Governments has testified the intractable nature of the problem. I shall ensure that their remarks are brought to the attention of the Foreign Office. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Tooting about overseas students' fees. He may have observed that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) will be raising that issue later this evening.
I thought that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a delightful contribution to our proceedings. It continued for 21 minutes, which was by far the longest contribution to the debate. This is meant as a compliment: 21 minutes from the hon. Gentleman is half as long as 10 minutes from many other hon. Members. It was a magnificent tour de horizon of the banking system. The hon. Gentleman drew on his recollection of history and seemed to sniff a latter day Creditanstalt collapsing some time between now and when we return after the Summer Recess. The hon. Gentleman seemed to visualise the Western economies collapsing like a pack of cards. If that happens, his moment will have arrived. I hope that he will elbow his way ahead of all the neo-Social Democrats who have left the Labour Pary behind, who might try to take advantage of the situation.
I take a rather different view from the hon. Gentleman and that is why I look forward to the autumn, when there will be a little legislation, but that is diversionary. The important matter will be squaring up for the next general election. We shall be marking out the ground over which we hope to fight to secure the affection and loyalty of the British electorate.
The hon. Member for Bolsover has a fundamental view of what is wrong and how it needs to be put right. He is right in his analysis about the dangerous extent to which Western society has developed an economy based upon debt to Third world countries—not debt created by Western bankers but debt that has been encouraged and manipulated by Western Governments. The United Kingdom is less exposed to such a risk than many other countries. That is because we have never had the same vested interest in creating such an extended debt since, when 30 per cent. of the gross domestic product of a country's economy is derived from exports, that country cannot afford to be in the business of giving it away. Other countries are more at risk than the United Kingdom. If there is a message for us, it is that we should be much more prudent and classical and live within our means. We are witnessing the consequences of an international never-never system that is now showing signs of unease and creakiness.
The hon. Member for Bolsover was asked whether his analysis led him to support the Brandt report. In a moment of commendable honesty, faint nausea passed across his face. He said that he would not dream of associating himself with the tinkering that is associated with the most emaciated Social Democrats. He then referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). He said that they were uncertain of their territorial status in subterranean areas. I thought of a neo-Marxist slogan: "Wets of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your corner seats". I shall take that memory away with me for the recess and commend it to everyone else.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, at its rising on Friday 30th July, this House do adjourn till Monday 18th October and shall not adjourn until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Appropriation Act and to any other Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Orders of the Day — Cornwall (Housing)

Mr. David Penahaligon: I have tried to raise the problem of housing in Cornwall on one or two occasions, unsuccessfully. However, I never thought that the possibility would arise when I could explore every avenue of the county's housing problems for a full 12 hours. When I realised that I had 12 hours in which to speak, I was tempted to bring a list of all my constituents who are awaiting a house and read them out so as to use the time available.
My county is recognised as an attractive part of the country but there are aspects of life in Cornwall that are not as attractive as some may envisage. Possibly in the next few weeks one may see more of my parliamentary colleagues in my county than in the House. Many people visit Cornwall in the summer, but sometimes the image of the county that they bring back is not a realistic appraisal. On a nice sunny day with the surf rolling in at Perranporth, or a similar resort, the county is most attractive. Even the humblest dwelling looks attractive in those circumstances. But there are the Januarys when the seas rage and the winds blow and tragedies such as the one last Christmas occur. Those dwellings may not be so magnificent in such circumstances.
The desire of individuals to secure an exclusive home of reasonable size should by now have been achieved by our society. There is a combination of circumstances in my county. I do not believe that that reasonable demand has been achieved and now the position is deteriorating. People in Cornwall earn the lowest average wage in England. A small percentage of houses is owned by the local authorities. Cornwall has the special problem of summer lets and second homes and a remarkable and inexplicable number of people are drifting towards the county. I suspect that it may have something to do with the next few weeks, as people see the county and believe that it would be a marvellous place in which to live. Those factors have added up to an unacceptable position. I hope that the Minister can respond to my questions.
I shall give a few examples of cases brought to my attention. I have not asked my constituents whether I may reveal their names in public, so I must refer to Mr. G, Mr. H or Mr. Q. For all that, the cases are valid and if the Minister wishes to check them, he may examine the correspondence. Mrs. G has three children aged 11, 10 and 9, two of whom have been in district council care for at least a year. Correspondence with the director of the local social services department reveals that if the family could be rehoused they could be reunited. Mrs. G has waited for at least a year.
Mrs. C lives in a three-bedroomed house. One bedroom is only a boxroom. In that house there are four adults, two teenagers and a two-year-old child, who lives with her mother in the boxroom. Mrs. C has been on the waiting list for three and a half years.
Mrs. P lives in a two-bedroomed flat with a kitchen and bathroom—it is not a bad flat. She lives there with two adult daughters and with Mr. and Mrs. T and their baby. Mr. T works on night shift and Mrs. T is expecting another child. That family has been on the waiting list for many months.
Another constituent lives in a house with her mother, father, brother, sister, niece and her seven-year-old child. The child sleeps in a cot in the boxroom with her mother. The mother says that the cot is now smaller than the child, but it cannot be replaced because there is no room for a bed.
Mr. and Mrs. B have a pleasant two-bedroomed maisonette. They wish to transfer to a one-bedroomed property. One would have expected the local authority to welcome that. One may ask what is wrong with the two-bedroomed flat. There are 45 steps from the flat to the street. Mrs. B is elderly, is losing mobility and is becoming a prisoner.
There are worse cases. Mrs. M had a stroke in November 1980. She has recovered a little and can move around her kitchen with the use of an aluminium frame. She lives in a first-floor flat and the only way in which she can get from there to the ground floor is for her husband to help her. The only way that she can get down the steps is for her husband to catch hold of the back of the wheelchair and play "bumps" as it goes down the steps to the street. The lady is in receipt of attendance allowance, which gives one an idea of her condition. Both she and her husband are over 70 years of age.
Another case that I know of is of a young woman who lives in a boxroom—I seem to have more boxrooms in my constituency than anything else—with her 12-month-old child. In the same house live her parents, her sisters, 17 and 12, and her brother of 16. I did not have the courage to tell her when she visited me that, knowing the housing problems in my county, she had no chance of being rehoused. If one were the housing officer with all those other cases to deal with, one could appreciate why her problem does not warrant priority.
The worst case of all that has recently been brought to my attention is of a young man who was paralysed in a motor accident in January of this year. He is as fit as he is likely to be. He is in a local hospital, and there he will stay until the local authority can find him a property in which to live. His wife and children live with relatives, and the hospital says that until suitable accommodation is provided, it is unreasonable and unrealistic for the wife to take on the not inconsiderable problems of having to deal with a husband who is paralysed from the neck down.
To be fair, the council is doing all that it can and I have promised that the family will be given priority consideration. However, he has been in the hospital for some weeks and there is not yet a house selected for the family and there is no start on the modifications that will be necessary for any home that they have. I could go on and on with examples, but as other hon. Members wish to speak I shall not give any more examples of individual cases.
As for the young couples who marry and believe that a responsible way to bring up a family is to obtain their own home before starting a family—there are many such people in my constituency and I suspect that they are not unique in believing that—they will die of old age and

childless if they are hoping for council property in my constituency. I wish to run through why this ludicrous position has arisen. It is complicated and I suspect that some of the problems are, if not unique, fairly special, to my part of the world.
If someone is faced with inadequate housing, the most obvious thing to do is to try to solve one's own problem. That is what most people do—they buy a house, take on a mortgage. I do not know whether the Minister has ever seen it, but some time ago I commissioned a pamphlet to be produced by the Low Pay Research Unit called "Low Pay and Unemployment in Cornwall". This evening, I shall refer only to the low-paid. The figures in the pamphlet are for 1980, but the ratios have not changed significantly. They show that for full-time working men over the age of 21, in April 1980 the average weekly wage in the United Kingdom was £124·50. In my county it was £98·80. If we look at it in another way, which may be better because the statistics are slightly out of date, in 1979 the average wage in Cornwall was 79·7 per cent. of the Great Britain average. In 1980, it was 79·4 per cent. I do not make anything of that miniscule change, as I suspect that the figure is similar for this year. At that time 29·6 per cent. of the full-time employed males in my county earned less than the top line wage of £75 a week. The average for Great Britain was 16 per cent.
It is a simple fact of the economy of my county—where I was born and brought up; some even say that I sound as though I come from Cornwall—that if a male in my constituency who is willing to do a good day's work and is fit and able could find a job with a top line of £85 a week, he would consider himself very fortunate. If such a job were advertised and a place were appointed where people had a queue for that job, there would be a queue of mammoth proportions. The sum of £85 a week represents £4,500 a year. We talk about solving the problem for ourselves. Could one manage on £4,500 a year and pay a mortgage of £12,000 or £13,000? I confess that I should not like to carry such a mortgage if I were on £4,500 a year. However, it is not unknown. Some people have managed it.
I come to the irony of the situation. In many parts of the country, house prices are related to local average wages. Tragically, that is not so in my county. I have no statistics, but I suspect that, ignoring London, the average prices in my county are at least the national average. The prices at which properties exchange hands in some of the coastal areas are beyond belief. Even inland, where local people are increasingly forced to live, prices for properties are at least the same as the average prices throughout the United Kingdom.
The reason for all this is the population drift. In the last decade, Cornwall has seen a population growth of 12·1 per cent. That is slightly higher than it was in the preceding decade. Let me repeat that figure: 12·1 per cent. population growth in a decade. It is the fifth highest figure for any county in England, and the other four contain new towns. However, there has been no attempt to organise that growth. Indeed, some people in our county occasionally approach the media in an attempt to put people off coming to live in Cornwall. It is quite remarkable to have such a population growth in a decade, and that decade follows the 1960s when the percentage, although lower, was much the same.
People are buying their way into the county. They do not get council houses. Indeed, I cannot get them for my


own constituents. People buy their way into Cornwall, and that is what is holding up house prices. So, for many people, solving one's own problem is simply not on. It is a fantasy that some hope for, work for, and strive for, but I fear that it is something that they will not attain.
We must dismiss that method. What about the private rented sector? Let us explore that next. The statistics here look slightly more encouraging, in that 15 per cent. of houses in Cornwall are used for private rent, while the national figure is 13·2 per cent. So perhaps things are better in this respect. However, the private rented sector is rapidly declining, as any Member of Parliament from any part of the country will know. I suspect that the basic raw figure is slightly misleading when it comes to my county, because it has an unusual proportion of tied properties. The most obvious tied property of course is the agricultural cottage, but there are a number of occupations in my county that have tied properties.
To be fair to the Government, I believe that the Government's shorthold tenancy reform will make a useful contribution here. However, they have made a mistake in not making rent review compulsory. There are many reasons for that. The truth is that it will not be greatly used, and it is not being greatly used. I suspect that as long as the Labour Party threatens, if it comes to power, to destroy the legislation and put all shorthold tenancies on a permanent basis, it will not reap its full advantage.
I am not certain that the legislation will even be that much good in my county. The real nub of the whole problem in my county is that for those who have property to rent there is a viable alternative and that is to rent the property by the week during the summer. Some are sold for second homes, but renting the property by the week during the summer is good business. The money comes in cash and Cornwall has a fairly understandable attitude towards paying tax. On the whole, it is not that sure that it is part of England anyway and so it has a fairly tolerant attitude towards the tax that one should pay in such circumstances. The money comes in, some of it gets lost and one can repossess the property every year.
Summer lets are a bigger problem in my county than are second homes. The reason for that is obvious—it is one of geography. Someone who wants a second home wants to get there. I know from my weekly experience that the distance from here to my front door is over 300 miles. Somewhere 300 miles away is not a credible proposition for a weekend visit. There are second homes, but they are not the problem in my part of the world that they are in North Wales and South Devon. The effect of second homes and summer lets is the same but there is a difference between the two.
The national dwelling and housing survey that was recently carried out showed that Cornwall had 18,800 vacant dwellings out of a total housing stock of 171,500. Eleven per cent. of the housing stock in Cornwall is empty. The figure for the English shires is 4·5 per cent. The highest outside Cornwall and England is the Isle of Wight at 8·1 per cent. There may be some political significance in such statistics. More remarkable than that is the figure for Dyfed, in Wales, of 10·7 per cent. and for Powys in Wales, of 10·8 per cent. Both those figures are lower than that for my county. Only Gwynedd, which has rightly received much publicity, where the figure is 14·5 per cent., has more vacant dwellings in that context than my county.
We need legislation for this problem. It could be justified by the social effects within the communities, where the problem has become a disease. If the Minister comes to my county, I can take him to areas where over one-third of the houses are now used for summer lets or for second homes. There is no more effective way of destroying a community. There is nobody there in January so the chapel and the shops close and the dentist and the doctor go away because they cannot make a living in just a few months of the year. Some villages make most forlorn sights in January. They are like disorganised Butlin holiday camps. If I found somebody in one village in my constituency in January, Portloe, I would be kind to him because one would have to assume that he was lost, because there are so few people who still live there.
It is my fundamental belief that the use of properties for summer lets or for second homes—I admit that the latter is slightly more difficult—should be made subject to change of use planning permission. I see no logic in the position defended by successive Governments that if one wants to change a house to a shop one must go to the local authority for planning permission to do so, but if one wants to change a house to the commercial purpose of letting it by the week during the summer, apparently no planning permission is required. It is to rub salt into the wound to see such properties given domestic rate relief. That is beyond belief for those who live in the villages, who have to deal with the problem and see its effect on other communities.
Such legislation need not be national. It needs to be legislation that an authority can use if it wishes. I remember discussing the problem once with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and he explained to me that summer lets and second homes in his fair city were not the first problem that came to mind when discussing housing difficulties. We know that that is so, but that does not mean that the problem is not massive in many areas.
I have gone through two options and I now return to the proposition that the council solve the housing problem. A survey suggested that 31·2 per cent. of the British housing stock was owned by local authorities. That is not quite one-third. The figure for Cornwall is 18·6 per cent. However, in reality, the figure is lower than that because it ignores the 11 per cent. of houses standing empty. However, of the houses lived in, in the normal sense of the word, 18·6 per cent. are owned by local authorities. The figure appears to be almost the lowest figures in the United Kingdom. The only counties with lower figures that I could find were Dorset, Sussex and Surrey. At least two of those counties are prosperous enough to enable people to solve the problem largely for themselves. They certainly have a standard of living that people in my county would not dare even to dream of.
There is nowhere to go other than to the local authority and so the pressures mount up until they are enormous. I have talked to all the district councils in my county. Perhaps the problem is best illustrated by the use that is being made of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. The figures that I shall give ignore council transfers, because no real change has taken place. However, 75 per cent. of the houses let by the Restormel authority in the past 12 months have been let to people under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act.
At 50 per cent., Caradon is about the norm for the county and North Cornwall has the best record, because


one-quarter of its lets come under that Act. Often, the councils have no accommodation. I sometimes hear hon. Members talking about hard-to-let council houses. There is no such thing in my area. When people have been through such sagas they will accept a house on top of a cliff, in the middle of a moor or anywhere. There is no such thing as a hard-to-let council house. The councils have no accommodation, and therefore resort to temporary accommodation.
In Carrick, nine families live in Trennick house, a fine old mansion with big rooms. There is a family in each room. A similar situation can be found at Penryn. The council has hired 40 caravans on a local site and other people are accommodated in bread and breakfast establishments. That is just not good enough. Indeed, matters are becoming worse. Sixty families live in temporary and often hopelessly inadequate accommodation in a small district authority such as Carrick. Indeed, it has a population of only 50,000. Kerrier has 24 families in a similar situation. Restormel has as many families in difficulties and also has caravan arrangements. Caradon is in a slightly better situation, with 15 or 17 families in temporary accommodation.
I have nothing against caravans. Indeed, I was brought up on a caravan site. My father owned one. Before someone else points it out, I should mention that the caravan site that I referred to in connection with Carrick council is owned by my brother. It is a small world in Cornwall and my brother seems happier with the situation than some people. However, I have no financial interest. Nevertheless, caravans can make a useful contribution towards housing. From years of experience, I know that they are not the place in which to bring up families. They can be useful for young married couples and perhaps, even, on the odd occasion, for couples with very young babies. However, once the children are aged 2 or 3 and begin to run around, caravans are just not the answer.
I have spoken to every housing department in my county. Penwith believes that it is holding its own. The rest believe that the position is becoming worse, and Carrick, Restormel and Kerrier believe that it is rapidly becoming worse. Some of them were a little embarrassed to point out that the position exists despite probably the most ruthless application of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 that exists in England. Anyone who does not qualify is declared to be intentionally homeless, and has to solve his own problems. One in four of the applications made in Cornwall under the Act is rejected as intentional homelessness. Nationally, the figure is nearer one in 25.
We look to the housing investment programme as the sourse of finance to solve the problems. Will the Minister explain why housing investment programmes on a per head basis in my county provide £27·50 a year while in the United Kingdom the average is £37·50 a year and in London for reasons that are totally beyond me the figure is £82 a year? If Cornwall were merely brought up to the United Kingdom average it would mean investment of an extra £3,750,000. Why does not Cornwall deserve average treatment? I defy the Minister to challenge the problem that I have outlined.
All the authorities in my area accept that the best way of using money is a mammoth building programme of accommodation suitable for the elderly. Cornwall has a

problem with elderly people that will probably increase. One has only to do a little canvassing—we all do that and perhaps we are moving into a canvassing period—to see the ludicrous under-occupancy that exists on many council estates. If more suitable accommodation were offered many people would willingly transfer homes. A substantial and sustained campaign of building such properties is required to make better use of the family homes that we have. That does not mean that we can afford to forget repairs.
I have often had the opportunity to discuss mining areas in previous Sessions. They may look attractive on an August day with the sun shining, but they are not all that they seem. On most criteria—whether the houses have baths and so on—the local housing position is 50 per cent. worse than the national average. One of the odd things about a rural area is that a slum looks more attractive in the middle of a field than with more slums around it. A slum is a slum, an inadequate house is an inadequate house, and a house without a bathroom is a house without a bathroom regardless of whether it happens to be in an urban or rural area.
The Minister may be surprised that I have used only the first 30 minutes of my 12 hours and have not mentioned council house sales. I do not believe that they make much difference in the medium term, and I do not want the Minister to spend a great deal of time arguing that case. On the whole, I welcome council house sales and look forward to the day of a mammoth property-owning democracy. I do not believe that the legislation is bad for many areas. It has been passed and it is too late to do anything about it. In some cases, council houses are in seaside areas, villages, and along small creeks and it is madness to sell them. I would be the first to oppose the allocation of further land to build more council properties in such areas. That is a minor part of the problem that I wish to bring to the Minister's attention. Council house sales, whether one is for or against them, are not the main cause of the problem that exists in Cornwall. I hope that I have outlined the seriousness of the problem.
Will the Government seriously consider legislation to restrict summer lets and second homes? My county is not the only one to press for help. An article in a London evening newspaper complains of properties being let by the week in the borough of Westminster. That came as a surprise. There is hope that something may be done to solve the problem, because London receives special attention. Cormwall however is, a long way away. Can we look forward to increased investment in the housing to at least the national average?
In many rural areas in percentage terms the lack of housing is worse than in urban areas. I note the tremendous depopulation of this great city, but that must at least help the local authorities in numbers of houses, even though the quality may not be that high. My area does not even have the number of houses to solve the basic shelter problems, and in many instances the houses are inadequate.
I hope that the Minister will consider the problem of summer lets and second homes. Basic housing cannot be provided with 10,000 vacant properties. If only we had the average investment per head given to local authority housing, an extra £3,750,000 would come to my county. Can the Minister explain why that does not happen?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) not only on having a debate on housing in Cornwall, but on having the first debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
The hon. Gentleman gave us a tour d'horizon of the conditions in Cormwall behind the glossy posters advertising sunshine on the beach. It is a matter about which he feels deeply, and his case was cogent and well documented.
I am not unaware of the problems. I have shared with the hon. Gentleman dicussion on the dereliction after generations of tin mining. In the wake are problems of unemployment and wage rates and their consequences for the population's ability to sustain adequate housing. The main issue is Cornwall's relationship to other parts of the country in regard to housing.
In April 1981 the total dwelling stock was 174,000, compared with the 1971 census estimate of 146,000, which is a growth of 19 per cent. The hon. Gentleman rightly laid stress on the fact that its growth factor is perhaps Cornwall's most outstanding feature, among its many unique attributes. It brings with it not only a straight numerical problem but one of social structure by age. That factor has shown a substantial growth compared with the housing stock.
In the decade 1971 to 1981 the usually resident population increased by 12 per cent. from 373,500 to 418,500. Much of the growth provided smaller than average household sizes. The total number of private households increased by almost 18 per cent., or 154,000 units.
My figures can be updated if they are wrong. Of the total number of dwellings about 16·9 per cent. are owned by the local authorities compared with 27 per cent. nationally. That is where the hon. Gentleman started his major theme of the problem of local housing in his area of Cornwall compared with national characteristics.
It is shown from the HIP returns that 3·3 per cent. of the total stock is unfit, 7·6 per cent. lacks basic amenities and 7·7 per cent. needs major repair. In total, almost 19 per cent. of the housing stock is in some state of disrepair. I gather that the figure in Penwith is almost one-third. That area has some of the oldest stock in Cornwall.
The vacancy rate in 1981 was approximately 4½ per cent., which is a low figure. However, in addition there is the problem of second homes and holiday lets. I think that hon. Members will recognise that the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention is not confined to Cornwall. He was right to say that the intensity of the second home problem is not at its most obvious in Cornwall. The second home problem is greater in England and Wales, and to some extent in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman asked for legislation as a means of dealing with the matter. There are many different ways in which some of the county authorities have sought to deal with it. In certain structure plans proposals have been made for relating new builds to local employment conditions. Others have related them to the number of those who work in a given area, and so on. There are many different thoughts about that problem. Local authorities regard second homes as a matter that should be related to structure planning.
Complex issues are raised, such as the citizen's right to own a property and to do with it what he or she would like, and whether we are limiting the choice that is available to any person to buy property anywhere he likes. Some factors require careful consideration. One area that suffers from this problem is the English Lake District. Its special planning board structure plan is before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for consideration. Such matters are being actively considered, so I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what the result of that consideration will be. However, I accept that in Cornwall there is plenty of evidence that that problem is compounding the general housing problem, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Penhaligon: I re-emphasise the fact that in my county summer lets is a bigger problem than second homes. That is not true of the Lake District or of parts of North Wales. I know of some of the difficulties with second homes. I recognise that it would not be easy to change the law. There is no problem with regard to the commercial letting of property by the week, the fortnight or the month. What the Minister said about freedom to do with property what we like is not true. If one owns a property in Cornwall and wants to open a fish and chip shop, one has to move heaven and earth before one gets permission to do that. I do not see the difference between using a property in a picturesque area such as Mevagissey for a fish and chip shop and using it to let by the week for tourists. I do not see why that problem cannot be dealt with.

Mr. Shaw: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We are discussing categories that are available under planning law for a change of use. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are talking about a dwelling either being used primarily for domestic use or primarily for commercial use. The fact that other persons will be living domestically in the dwelling does not necessarily involve a change of use. The dwelling is still a dwelling or a residence and has people living in it. As the change of use order stands at the moment, it does not provide for the distinction that the hon. Gentleman would wish. I note his views. He is not alone in voicing them. It is a different matter from that of the ownership of a second dwelling.
The hon. Gentleman laid a fair amount of stress on the peculiarity of the need problem in Cornwall. He quoted from the national dwelling and housing survey. It showed that about 3·2 per cent. of households in Cornwall were overcrowded as compared with 3·7 per cent. in other shire counties. Those figures do not show a great difference. The survey showed that 1 per cent. of households in Cornwall were sharing a dwelling as compared with 1·5 per cent. of other counties. I do not for one minute wish to reduce the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to the overall condition of the cases that he has raised. Each of them showed a real need and problem that must be solved. Nevertheless, it is not entirely fair to assume that Cornwall is so different on some of those measurements from other shire counties.
Nevertheless, Cornwall hs a substantial growth in that sector of the population that requires special housing provision—the elderly. In terms of net migration into the county, a substantial proportion of people in the structure plan period, 1976–91, will be at or near retirement age. That is one of the reasons why the structure plan provides for about 40,000 new dwellings in that period.
I shall now deal with what should be the housing response to the needs that the hon. Gentleman has so clearly demonstrated. There are real problems. We should first examine home improvements as a method of ensuring that the housing stock is brought up to a satisfactory level. The hon. Gentleman stressed repair and renewal of the housing stock in Cornwall. It is a significant problem. Too often, we tend to think of repair and renewal as an urban or, indeed, an inner-city problem. That is not true of Cornwall. The problem is seen at its most acute in rural housing, where there has been a long history of neglect. The Government attach great importance to the process of home improvement. We have introduced many measures, both legislative and financial, to encourage this expansion. The hon. Gentleman will know that the 1980 Act has introduced flexibility into the system and has made grant available to many more people, including those on low incomes, the elderly, the disabled and tenants and in both the public and the private sector. In his Budget Statement, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced provision for 90 per cent. grant and the subsequent additional allocations to local authorities have given a considerable boost to the campaign for home improvement.
The hon. Gentleman questioned fundamentally the basis of HIPs and whether Cornwall was being treated fairly in so far as it does not receive the average allocation per head of population. With respect, I do not believe that the mere mathematics of allocation per head of population is a fair way of making the assessment. It is intended that HIP allocations are based on an objective analysis of housing need, the number of houses in disrepair or, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the number of houses without bathrooms. The pressure to which authorities are subjected in terms of numbers of units is taken into account when arriving at the HIP allocation. It is not simply a matter of numbers and averages.
We try to tailor to the need. That is why the levels of home improvement allocations in Cornwall differ. Widely differing bids have been made for the various districts within the hon. Gentleman's constituency. His own authority, Carrick, got all that it asked for, and all the others were given allocations sufficient to meet the mandatory claims that they estimated would be made upon them, and more. The hon. Gentleman might say that they have not got nearly enough, but in respect of the allocations that was the case. Clearly in some areas demand has been underestimated. However, we have advised all local authorities that where the demand for grants in some areas is lower than had been previously estimated when they made their bids we shall want to reallocate the surplus funds to authorities in whose areas the demand is running in excess of available funds. We shall do this in September and the hon. Member may be assured that we shall look very carefully and sympathetically at the situation in Carrick and in all the other Cornish authorities, but I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that I cannot at this stage say how these matters will work out. In the meantime, we are pleased that some councils are making full use of their capital receipts for home improvement grants and of the tolerance arrangements that are available to them.
It is important to understand that the allocations made are in no sense a measure of the problems that the

authorities have to face. In many cases, the allocation was simply a topping up of the provision that local authorities had already made in their budget for improvement grants. While £18,000 for Carrick seems absurdly low when compared with the £342,000 allocated to Caradon, it should be seen against the original provision of nearly £1 million made by Carrick compared with just over £300,000 by Caradon.
I shall not burden the hon. Gentleman or the House with further detailed comparisons. The message must be that many local authorities were already doing a great deal and Carrick was certainly one of these.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the matter of homelessness. I certainly agree that homelessness is a significant problem in Cornwall. As the hon. Member explained, the problem is exacerbated in part by the attractiveness of Cornwall as a holiday resort. There is no doubt that Cornwall "imports"—I use the word advisedly—homelessness. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is a problem that becomes particularly critical when winter lets are no longer available.

Mr. Penhaligon: I pursued that point during my telephone conversations. On the whole, housing officers express the view that more than 80 per cent. of those qualifying for help under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act are what Cornish people would describe as local. What a Cornishman describes as "local" perhaps reveals a not desperately tolerant attitude to the "foreigners" from Devon and beyond.
Therefore, although there is an element of truth in what the Minister says, I think that that aspect of the problem is sometimes exaggerated. I therefore ask the Minister to check the figures so as not to be misled.

Mr. Shaw: I shall certainly ensure that those figures are checked because it is important to make the distinction and to see whether pressure of summer lettings and so on results in people being displaced or whether there is an indigenous homelessness problem, irrespective of the pressure placed on the housing stock in Cornwall by holidaymakers.
The hon. Gentleman and local authorities must accept that the responsibility for meeting local housing needs and helping homeless people must rest with the locally elected housing authorities. Their duties have been laid down in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. Thus, all who are homeless are entitled to some kind of help from local authorities, including accommodation for those in greatest need. The Government have recently concluded a review of the operations of the Act in England and Wales and have decided from this that the Act should not be amended but that we shall be reviewing the code of guidance to which local authorities must have regard.
A debate of this kind provides information and opinion to which we must give serious consideration. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
I am satisfied that the concern expressed about the operations of some aspects of the Act have largely been met by the measures recently outlined in my right hon. Friend's announcement of the conclusion of the review on 13 May. I should add that we shall certainly continue to monitor the operations of the Act.
As regards the need for building new houses, the hon. Gentleman rightly referred to local authorities' housing programmes. Clearly, to build new houses for rent would


be a most important prospect if it could be achieved. I do not dispute that for Cornwall this must always be a considerable element of its housing investment programme. However, I think it is equally important for local authorities to take a fundamental look at the role they have to play in housing provision. They have got to look beyond the needs of those who want to rent, to those who want to buy and could afford to do so, given the wide range of low-cost home ownership for which we have been campaigning.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the average wage rates in relation to mortgage commitments, but he will recognise that on the average wage of £75 or £90 to which he referred this could still provide, given the terms available either through local authorities or building societies, mortgage cover for the ownership of low-cost houses. It is in that respect that I commend to the hon. Gentleman the recent booklet issued by the South-West regional office of the Department which attractively lays out the range of possibilities for low-cost home ownership.
Housing problems will not be solved by the use of public sector money alone. This is an area where private sector finance and the ability and willingness of the house building industry to provide low-cost housing must move hand in hand.
The local authority's role is now much wider than one of simply providing houses for rent. More and more it must look for partnership deals with the private sector, to the release of land for the provision of low-cost starter homes and also for low-cost home ownership for the elderly, particularly where houses are under-occupied or are too large and too expensive to run.
This is already happening in Cornwall. Carrick has already provided houses for sale in Falmouth and there are more in the pipeline. It has provided land for self-build groups, as has North Cornwall, which has also made land available for local builders. I have no doubt that much more could be done. The South-West regional office has recently concluded a round of discussions with a number of authorities in its region and representatives of the house building industry to consider jointly and in detail the range of partnership deals that can be struck.
During the forthcoming HIP discussions the Department will be discussing with Cornish authorities just how much more they can become involved in these initiatives. It may be that we shall be able to arrange discussions with them and builders later this year. Indeed, North Cornwall has figured in the first round of discussions, and I can say that I was pleased with the reasonable and forthcoming attitude taken by the officers and members of North Cornwall council on this type of problem. That is an encouragingn indication, and is one we hope to build on.
What is important here is the way in which local authorities manage their resources, both physical and financial. The role of capital receipts in local authority financial management is crucial. We can see this clearly from the level of allocations Cornish authorities received in 1981–82 measured against the capital receipts that were then available. Caradon's allocation was £2·1 million, with capital receipts of over £0·5 million. Carrick's allocation was £1·4 million, with capital receipts of £0·9 million. Kerrier's allocation was £1·6 million, with capital receipts of nearly £0·9 million. North Cornwall's allocation was £1·3 million, with capital receipts of nearly £0·9 million. Penwith's allocation was £1·7 million, with capital receipts over £0·5 million. Restormel's allocation was £1·6 million, with capital receipts over £1 million. In total, therefore, Cornwall authorities were able to enhance their allocations by £5 million.
That is a significant prospect that I trust wilt be built on by local authorities in Cornwall and in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to generate additional funds for the purposes mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Severe housing problems and pressures on housing department staff exist in Cornwall. House lets and holiday businesses cause specific problems, but they also bring substantial revenue to Cornwall. More specific answers are required and I shall ensure that my colleague responds in writing. We must grapple with the issues that the hon. Member raised so cogently.

Orders of the Day — Overseas Development Budget (Population Programmes)

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Part of the charm of the House of Commons is that one has the most unlikely bedfellows in debates. I now ask the House to raise its eyes from Cornwall's housing problems to the importance of population programmes in the overseas development budget. When listening to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), I realised that perhaps the two subjects were not far divorced. He mentioned the problems caused by the increase in population growth and age distribution in Cornwall. Both will crop up in this debate.
I must restate the terrifying context in which any debate on population policy takes place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) refers to that whenever he speaks about the Brandt report. He highlights the problem as one of the factors in the pressing state of emergency facing the world when dealing with development and economic reorganisation for the rest of the century.
In 1900 the world's population was just over two billion. Whether one is a creationist or an evolutionist, by 1975 the figure had doubled to four billion. The experts agree that it is inevitable that between 1975 and 2000 the world's population will have increased by a further two billion. That means that in the last 25 years of the century the world's population will have increased by an amount equal to the total population 80 years ago. That is inevitable because of the age distribution in the developing world. One of the most terrifying statistics is that 50 per cent. of the population of the developing countries is under 15 years of age. Even if all the people born had simple replacement families of two children per couple, by the year 2000 the world population would top six billion.
Whenever people talk of such statistics the danger is that the figures become like telephone numbers. I should like to put the statistics on a more human level so that we understand what they mean. The World Bank produced figures two years ago predicting the population for the biggest cities in the world by the year 2000. The World Bank suggests that the population of the largest city in the world, Mexico, will have increased from 12 million to 32 million. That is an increase of 20 million in the population of one city in 20 years. Put another way, in the year 2000 the population of Mexico City will be the same as the population of Spain today. It surely does not require much imagination to envisage the social, political and infrastructural problems that such growth will impose on such cities. Mexico City is the largest, but there are many other cities in a similar position.
One of the stark facts about the list of the 10 largest cities in the world is that in the year 2000 the smallest of those 10 will be larger than the largest of those 10 today. It does not require much imagination to envisage the strains and the social, economic and human resource problems that growth will impose. It is not possible to provide for the proper infrastructure, even by the standards which prevail in those countries today, to meet that growth in population. I believe it is a major problem on which anyone interested in the future stability of the world must spend some time concentrating.
Even worse than the simple question of numbers is the thought of the effect of that increase in population on the

world's resources. If in the last 25 years of this century the world's population is to increase by 50 per cent. we shall have to increase the world's production of food by 50 per cent. merely to have the same distribution of food resources that we have today. We know now that 800 million people in the world do not have a minimum standard of nutrition. Merely in order to maintain the same average food consumption per head, we will have to increase world food production by 50 per cent. in the last 25 years of the century.
If it is true of food, it is true of all the other resources that extra human beings will demand. As the years go by, the call in the developing world for a more equitable distribution of the world's resources will, to put it at its mildest, not reduce. It is far more likely that it will increase. The demands on extra resources, and the extra demands on finite resources, will be acute. Nowhere is the principle of mutuality of interests, which was set out by the Brandt commission, more clearly visible, nowhere can we see our own interests more clearly aligned alongside the interests of citizens of the developing world, than when we examine the effect of the world's population on the distribution of resources.
I began my speech by emphasising that the population problem is a world problem, and that it is not isolated in particular countries. I suggested that we should look at the problem in the context of the overseas development budget because it is clearly in the developing world that the largest numbers and the greatest problems exist. The fastest growth rate of population exists in the developing world. Empirical evidence has shown convincingly that there is a close link between the level of development and the rate of increase of a country's population. There is a circular link, as in all interesting questions, between population growth and development. It is impossible to say whether the decline in population causes the improvement in development or whether the improvement in development causes the decline in population. What we do know is that they go together.
In initiating the debate and in concentrating the attention of the House for a few minutes on the importance of population programmes in the overseas development budget, my principal thesis is that if we can make progress on bringing the world's population growth under control we shall also be making progress in promoting the development of the poorest countries. That is an essential part of our political priorities both in promoting the development of our economy as part of the world's economy and as part of underwriting the stability of the world's political systems in which this country, as a great trading nation, has a vital vested interest.
There cannot be any other programme in the overseas development budget which is more cost-effective than the resources that we commit to population policy. India has a population of 680 million and the Indian Government have a budget commitment to their population programme of £60 million. That may sound quite a lot of money, but it is chickenfeed compared with the benefits that come from an effective population policy. Surely there is no comparison between the cost of saving an unwanted birth and the cost of maintaining an unwanted child. That is what the argument on cost and population policy is all about. It is a supremely cost-effective way of promoting the development of some of the poorest countries.
When thinking about the population policy it is important that we should not see it as a Malthusian attempt


to restrict family growth, to deny family rights and to divide a constant cake between a small number. That is the opposite of what I consider to be an effective and sensitive population policy.
A successful population policy must be sensitive to the wishes and rights of individuals as human beings. We must not say to individuals "You cannot have a larger family than two or three children". We must say "If you have a family of two or three children, the benefits that will accrue to you are as follows …". In other words, the policy must be positive and not negative. The policy must not suggest that the rich countries are saying to the poorer countries "Restrain your populations and then there will be more to go round for us all."
We must argue positively that a benefit will accrue to those in the poorer countries and to other citizens on this planet if the population policy is successful. We must concentrate on the real benefits to the individual as a private citizen and to his family.
The benefits are real. One of the greatest benefits that come from an effective and sensitive population policy is the enhancement of the status of women. In a society where the woman cannot control how many children she has because she does not have access to family planning facilities, there is a terrible tendency that she will become the woman of the Victorian caricature who is concerned only with housekeeping and bringing up a family. She will have no rights outside the home and no role in society as a whole. If she has the opportunity to make a choice about how many children she wants in her family, the likelihood is that she will be able to choose whether she wants to spend more of her life as a more general member of society. We must present the women of the world with that choice because it is part of their rights as human beings that they should have the choice, and because it is in the interests of the rest of us that that choice should exist.
Some of us had lunch yesterday with the man who is responsible for running the Indian Government's population programme. He defined his objective in a phrase which I thought was telling. He said that the objective is an informed change of behavioural patterns. It is not an imposed policy. It is an attempt to inform people of the opportunities if they pursue a different course. That is the aspiration of those who want to see a positive population policy. That is not only my view. It was a view endorsed by the Brandt Commission when it said:
We believe that development policies should include a national population programme aiming at an appropriate balance between population and resources, making family planning services freely available and integrated with other measures to promote welfare and social change.
The view was also endorsed by a conference of parliamentarians that was attended, among others, by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology. They called on Governments to take deliberate steps to promote and strengthen the integration of population programmes in all development activities. The view was also accepted by this Government in that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), when he was Lord Privy Seal, said that he intended to launch a new programme for drinking water and sanitation. He said:
We shall do more to promote better use of energy … We shall expand our activities in agricultural research. We shall contribute more to international population programmes. These four areas deserve special attention. Much can be achieved by

relatively small amounts of public money and they will especially help the poorer countries."—[Official Report, 24 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 730–31.]
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who is to reply, in a foreword to a booklet produced by the Overseas Development Administration reporting on population and drawing together its information on population, said
It must be clear to everybody that the problems arising from the increasing population of the world will be among the most pressing, not only for governments but for the people themselves for as far ahead as we can see.
The Ottawa summit last year, which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Ronald Reagan, also endorsed that view. President Mitterand, Mr. Trudeau and Chancellor Schmidt were also present. That group was not what one might describe as the annual general meeting of the aid lobby. Paragraph 20 of the communiqué stated:
We are deeply concerned about the implications of world population growth. Many developing countries are taking action to deal with that problem, in ways sensitive to human values and dignity, and to develop human resources, including technical and managerial capabilities. We recognise the importance of these issues and will place greater emphasis on international efforts in these areas.
So there is an international consensus. As I was compiling that list of those who agreed with my view, my scepticism got the better of me. I wondered if whether all those international leaders were in favour, was there a hitch somewhere? However, I believe that that high powered endorsement is right. I now wish to discuss our performance against the yardstick that has been set in those statements. I unreservedly welcome part of our recent record such as the increased resources made available this year to the United Nations fund for population activities and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, both of which are multilateral agencies.
I am pleased to say that the argument as to whether we should give aid through multilateral or bilateral channels did not obscure the valuable work that those multilateral agencies do. Both their budgets have been increased since last year—the IPPF to a record level and the UNFPA back towards the level it held at the end of the 1970s.
I also warmly welcome the extra £0·25 million allocation made earlier this year to the world fertility survey, another mulilateral agency. That money is well directed.
I also welcome the fact that in my right hon. Friend's foreword, to which I have alluded, he gave a firm undertaking when he said:
I have instructed that a population component should wherever possible be incorporated in new development projects financed by ODA.
That is an important commitment by the Minister in charge of the ODA budget to the practical application of an overall population policy.
Those of us who are interested in the issue have become anxious over the past few months about the scale of resources in the ODA budget committed to population programmes. I know that my right hon. Friend has not committed the Government to a specific target and that he sees the aim as desirable, but not monitored against a specific target by the Department. But unless he can explain why the figures have emerged, the situation causes us anxiety. In 1980 we spent 1 per cent. of our budget on population programmes but the figure has now fallen to 0·6 per cent., according to Lord Skelmersdale in a debate in the other place, although the figures in the speech are


unclear and my interpretation is open to correction. It may, in part, be due to underspending on the programmes in Orissa and Egypt.
As a member of the Select Committee on Transport I have been party to fairly acute criticisms of the Department of Transport for underspending its roadbuilding budget. The same reasons may apply to the ODA budget. But we should put in an element to allow for underspending.
My right hon. Friend's record shows a clear and welcome commitment to the issues that I have raised. But in the recent figures from the ODA there is uncertainty about whether it is putting into practical effect the priorities that he has set. I hope that he will respond to the anxiety. I do not expect replies today. Indeed, my right hon. Friend cannot reply positively from the Dispatch Box without having given the matter thought.
Two ideas came out of the lunch with the Indian population people. The first is a long-term suggestion so that we do not get into the underspending position that I suspect we have got into recently. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is thinking about the major population projects that will come into the development budget when the Orissa and Egypt projects are exhausted? I suspect that the Indian authorities have not done much work on the matter. One certain way to avoid underspending is to ensure that plans for the next project are ready before the previous project is exhausted. I hope that work is being done so that when the time comes we shall not be told that the plans were not properly prepared.
My second suggestion is on a short-term programme. If my right hon. Friend has a little to spare in his budget, it may beneift not only developing countries but this country in the short term. When we asked the Indian authorities how they would use a relatively limited amount of money that would be available quickly, they said that there was a machine called a laproscope. I had not heard of it before, but I have since talked to a Harley Street gynaecologist who has had some experience of it in India. The machines are already in use in India. They are an effective and relatively cheap means of simplifying the sterilisation of women. They cost about £2,000 each, and each machine is capable of 2,000 operations a year. About £400,000 would enable 400,000 sterilisations to be performed each year for three years.
I make this point in seriousness, because it is an important one. Often, when I talk about the developing world as a trading partner for this country, I am asked what it is that the developing world can buy that we can make at the right price for it to be able to afford. This kind of machinery is something that I am told is not available in India. If it is not available in India, it is not likely to be available in any developing country. Therefore, it is something that they need to import from the West. The machinery is made here and uses the up-to-date, "whiz-kid" technology my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology promotes. It is the kind of developing industry that we need to provide jobs, and at the same time it plays a vitally important role in the recipient country, in this case India.
The world has a vital common interest in pursuing an effective population programme. It is the most cost-effective development that we can make. I welcome the commitment shown by Her Majesty's Government, which

I share. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to re-enforce what has become a slightly wavering commitment. I hope also that one or other of the two proposals that I have made will be examined and accepted as a means of underlining that commitment, not only to the principle, but to the practical steps to put it into effect.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) not only on his choice of subject, which I put in for myself, but on having the great good fortune of being selected for the second debate. This is one of those rare parliamentary opportunities when other right hon. and hon. Members can share in the good fortune of one of their colleagues. I am grateful to the hon. Member for ensuring that the debate has come on at this reasonably convenient time and not, as it might have been, at four or five o'clock in the morning. We have all had that experience, and it is sometimes off-putting, particularly if one has to sit through many other debates before getting to one's own subject.
The hon. Member for Loughborough and I, together with three of our parliamentary colleagues, went to India last year as guests of the India Family Planning Association and the Bangladesh Family Planning Association, sponsored by the International Planned Parenthood Federation. We were there to study population policy and birth control facilities in those two vast countries, which have vast populations and vast population problems. I came back feeling slightly pessimistic. Although there was a great deal of effort by national Governments, State governments, local governments, the medical profession, voluntary organisations and so on in helping to ensure that there were appropriate population policies, one felt, when one saw the dimensions of the problem, whether in the urban slums of Bombay, Calcutta and Bangalore or the rural areas outside Bangalore or Dacca in Bangladesh, that all the time they were running as hard as they could and were yet going backwards, in spite of all their efforts.
I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough's statistics about the general world population programme which, although well known to those who take an interest in these things, are still not well enough known in countries such as Britain, or in many other parts of the world, particularly in countries which give large amounts of aid overseas, as we do. I wish to refer briefly to the India experience because one can broadly generalise from that. In terms of population, India is the second largest country in the world. It is the world's largest democracy and its experience will often be vital in determining whether the world population will continue to expand at the frightening rate that it has recently achieved.
The census last year in India shows that the population was rather more than had been thought—just over 680 million. We were told yesterday at lunch by the experts from Orissa that by the end of the century the population of India would rise from roughly 680 million to 950 million, and that at some time in the first half of the twenty-first century, it would stabilise at 1·3 billion. Those figures sound frightening, but what is even more frightening is that the figures are based on certain assumptions. Those assumptions are that all the targets—for fertility, mother and child health care, provision of health facilities, clinics, and so on, where


people get birth control supplies and have sterilisation—are met and have the desired effect. With the best will in the world, those targets will not necessarily be met, so they will not necessarily have the desired effect. So the figures that I have given for the population of India in the year 2000, and by the year 2030 and 2040, will be underestimates.
If that is the experience of India, where the central Government and the State Governments are doing their best to tackle the problem, helped by the aid from the Minister's Department in places like Orissa, the prospect for the world as a whole is bleak. Many countries are not putting the same effort into population policies nor are we as a Government playing such a part in giving aid and concentrating it on matters such as family planning.
Several of us went recently to the offices of the World Fertility Survey in London, which is funded partly by the Minister's own Department. I was astonished by the preliminary results of what is unquestionably the largest social survey undertaken in human history. In dozens of countries, hundreds of thousands of women were asked detailed questions in various languages, with appropriate quality testing, and so on.
I shall read two summaries of the results under two headings. A number of headings are of interest—age at marriage, fertility, breast feeding, family planning, fertility intentions, socio-economic differentials and policy implications. I shall refer briefly to two. The first is fertility. I quote from the document which is a summary of the conclusions of this vast world survey:
Current fertility levels far exceed those required to attain moderate population growth; fertility would have to be sustained at the 'replacement' level of 2·2 to 2·5 births per woman for up to 60 years before annual births and deaths would come into balance.
Secondly:
Current fertility levels are highest in Africa ranging between 6 children per woman in Sudan"—
that is the lowest in Africa—
to 8 in Kenya.
That is the highest in Africa. In fact, it is the highest in the world.
Current fertility is only slightly lower in the Middle East and most countries in Asia, and is lowest in Latin America".
Those findings are quite frightening.
Even more astonishing, in my view, are the survey's findings about fertility intentions:
Nearly half of the current married fecund women said they wanted to cease childbearing.
That is to be welcomed, but
The average desired family size was high: over four children for most countries in Asia and Latin America, but over six children in most Arab countries and seven in Africa".
That is astonishing, because it means that, in addition to providing appropriate population policies through aid budgets, and so on, and family planning facilities, contraceptive facilities, and so on, we still have the problem in the poor countries that the desired family size on the part of most women in the child-bearing ages is far higher than the replacement rate that is necessary to achieve some stability in the world population at around perhaps 8 billion to 10 billion compared with today's 4·4 billion, by the end of the next century.
However, there are some encouraging features in the finding on fertility intentions. Less than half the women who want no more children are using contraceptives and that shows a large unmet need for family planning services throughout the world. As has been pointed out, in many

developing countries the birth rate would fall sharply if all unwanted births could be prevented. Those are the statistics and I shall not labour them.
What are the consequences if we cannot achieve more effective action, particularly in the developing countries, than we have done so far to limit the rate at which the population is increasing? It will be a century or more before we can even think in terms of bringing down the world's population. It is bound to continue growing in the meantime.
The Brandt report made it clear that there could be many adverse consequences. The hon. Member for Loughborough pointed out some of those. People need food to eat, water to drink, land to live and grow food on, transport, roads, education, housing, basic medical facilities, and they need, as we in Britain know to our cost, jobs.
Every birth beyond the replacement rate lowers the average living standards of the people already in the world. The days are past when, as perhaps in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, we could look forward to extra children because they would add to national output, increase the gross national product and so on. Children born beyond the replacement rate are making matters worse. Of course, they cannot help that, nor can their parents, but we must try to do something about it. The adverse consequences of the population problem will not necessarily be confined to the Third world. They will affect every person living in Britain and, indeed, in every rich industrial country in the world.
As Brandt pointed out in his report, it is in our interests to take action to prevent matters from getting worse. That is why the work of the Overseas Development Administration is so important.
Another reason why it is important for us to tackle the population problem, particularly through the aid budget as the Minister is trying to do, is that a rich country such as Britain can give increasing amounts of aid 10 the developing world only if it has the tacit support, or at least the neutrality, of the British people. If there is a strong move against overseas aid, the minority who believe passionately that it is one of the areas in which we must expand our assistance, will have a harder job.
If, in the next 20 years, people see more and more of our aid going to countries the populations of which are increasing, not to increase average living standards of the existing population in that country but merely to stave off disaster and, if possible, to preserve present living standards for a larger number of people, there may come about on the part of some British people and those of other rich countries which give aid, a revulsion against giving that aid on the ground that it is being wasted. Of course, it will not be wasted, but it will not serve the purpose that many of us have been preaching in Britain for the past decade or more.
Where does that leave the Government and the ODA? The ODA started doing a good job, but, in looking to the future, we must consider three parts of that job. First, the ODA funds various international bodies such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations fund for population activities. The hon. Member for Loughborough pointed out that amounts to those bodies were increased earlier this year.
We know from those bodies that the organisations that respond to requests throughout the world for facilities for family planning and advice on population policy cannot


cope with the demand. Their budgets do not allow them to meet all the demands in the Third world for those facilities. They could do with more money. It is not only Britain that should give more money. We are one of many donors. Nevertheless, this is one aspect of the ODA's operations in which we should hope for a rising amount of money each year, even perhaps within an unchanging aid budget. However, like many hon. Members, I would argue strongly that we should have an increased aid budget each year, over and above the rate of inflation. Even if the aid budget were, unfortuntely, to remain at its present cash level, a case could be made for increasing the small proportion that goes to such eminent and worthwhile international institutions.
The Department could respond to requests from developing countries for advice and assistance—as in the case of Orissa, in India—on population policy, mother and child health care, clinic building, and the provision of contraceptive facilities and so on. All those things are good, but the Minister's instruction or directive—I am not sure what it is called—that there should be a population component in all aid projects represents an important step forward.
Some of us are a little worried that the Minister's enthusiasm—or at least his recognition of the problem's importance—may not be entirely shared by his officials. After all, the Department is quite big. There are projects all over the world and new ones come up all the time. With no disrespect to anyone, people have their own ideas. Even when one is dealing with others in the Third world, it is a sensitive subject. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point.
I turn to the third area in which the ODA and, in particular, the Minister can help. It does not involve money—although that is important in the first-two cases that I mentioned—as much as international conferences and gatherings. The ODA has done a good job. I am not so sure about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, of which the ODA is a part. At the preliminary meeting of Foreign Ministers last year, before the Cancun summit, I asked one of them whether population policy would be on the agenda at Cancun. I received a rather dusty answer, to the effect that, although that might be a good idea, the agenda was more or less fixed and one must have regard to the sensitivities of other countries.
I was pleasantly surprised to see in the summary issued after Cancun by President Portillo of Mexico and Premier Trudeau of Canada that there was a distinct reference to the importance of population policy. It certainly took me by surprise and I imagine that it also took Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by surprise, although it may not have taken the right hon. Gentleman by surprise. As the hon. Member for Loughborough pointed out, since then there has at other international conferences always been a small reference to the need for appropriate population policies. It is a major achievement of the past year that the subject is now at last on the agenda at major international conferences on the world economic situation, the North-South dialogue, the Brandt report and so on.
To have the problem acknowledged is an important first step. I hope that the fact that it is being acknowledged and that the subject will recur will give the Minister more power, when arguing, in particular, with his colleagues in the Treasury to obtain more money, under the headings

that I have mentioned, to deal with a problem that will adversely affect us in the not too distant future. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that he will do his best to fight for an increased share of the budget and an increased total cash level for population programmes under the various headings. I also hope that he will do his best to ensure that even if officials in his Department have mixed feelings about some of the implications involved, they will buckle down to the task as good civil servants and follow the firm directive that I believe he has already given them.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I was talking recently to a visiting elected representative from an African country. He was a huge man and most encouraging to talk to because he laughed at everything one said. I thought that I should be more serious, so I said "I suppose the main problems in your country must be population growth and the need to increase food production." He said "Oh no, we do not worry about population. We can produce as much food as we want." I was surprised by his reply and continued the discussion in a rather desultory manner and realised that my remarks were falling on somewhat sterile ground. I changed tack and asked him whether he was married. He said "Yes." I asked whether he had any children and he said "Yes." I said "How many children have you?" He said "Thirty-six, I do love the little ones."
What he said emphasised two points: first, the continuing lack of understanding of the problems of population growth that exists in many developing countries, in some cases among the more educated sections of the people; and, secondly, that education about family planning is just as necessary for men as it is for women.
After the excellent speeches that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) and the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins), I shall not take much time. I find the forecast for population growth almost beyond imagination. A depressing picture has been painted. I am glad that the subject of population aid programmes has been raised again. I believe that the world is only beginning to scratch the surface of the problem with which it is faced.
It is not unfair to say that it takes an effort of will for the House to look beyond the end of a Parliament. Sometimes it is rather an effort of will to look beyond the end of a year, and, unfairly sometimes, it is said that the Whips Office finds it difficult to look beyond the end of a week. I have long felt that population growth is the biggest threat to the future of our children, grandchildren and all later generations. It is a pity that many well-meaning but misguided unilateral nuclear disarmers do not expend more of their energy on the far greater threat to the world posed by population growth. One can say the same about some of the more unrealistic conservationists. It will be the sheer numbers of people that will pose the greatest threat to the future of the environment.
The statistics are fearsome and almost beyond comprehension. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and the hon. Member for Waltham Forest referred to the world picture. In spite of the current slight drop in the fertility rate, the world population will double within 40 years. There will be 700 million more workers by the end of the century. The population of China is


increasing annually by 11·1 million people, Egypt's by 1·1 million, India's by 14·3 million and Kenya's by 590,000. Kenya has the fastest population growth rate in the world and it is estimated that the population will double during the next 18 years. Almost every African country now has a population of which more than 50 per cent. ia aged under 21.
The problems of providing food, housing, education and jobs for the vast numbers of people who will flood the Third world are mind-boggling, but if they are not solved there will be constant famine, disease and hardship, which will create social and political reactions which can lead only too easily to war or internal strife. If we care about the future, we have a duty to do all that we can to limit population growth.
It is encouraging that, out of 143 countries with populations of more than 250,000, 86 support the provision of family planning services and 35 of those countries have the reduction of the rate of population growth as their objective. Support for family planning services is still growing, but international population organisations continue to report that the need for funds for family planning is in excess of resources. We must ask ourselves, as we are a trading nation with many investments in Third world countries, whether we should give more help, whether existing help is properly directed or whether more money in our aid programme should be directed to population control.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough drew attention to the fact that the Government regard population programmes as worthy of special attention. The additional £250,000 allocated to the World Fertility Survey is welcome. However, it is important that a proportion of the aid programme should be spent on population control. The allocation has fallen consistently from 1978 until 1981, so that today it is almost at the 1974 level. That is contrary to the Government's intentions. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can tell the House whether that is true. If so, why is it happening?
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and the hon. Member for Waltham Forest asked questions that I shall not repeat. My hon. Friend stole my quote from the Brandt report. Are we playing our part in helping developing countries to achieve an appropriate balance between population and resources? Has our support been increased as much as it should be? I support the hon. Member for Waltham Forest, who asked for more money from the Treasury. I am not sure that we are living up to our duty, but I hope that my right hon. Friend can reassure me.

Mr. Terry Davis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) both on his initiative in asking for the debate and on his good fortune in being chosen to speak so early in the evening. I also wish to congratulate him on his speech. It is rare for me to agree with almost every word of a speech from the Conservative Benches, but on this occasion I agreed with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that it will not embarrass him too much, because his support for the Government has become rather lukewarm, but on this occasion he has my warm support.
I too had the good fortune to meet the delegation from Orissa. I emphasise one point that the hon. Gentleman put to the Minister. I was much impressed by the account that

the delegation gave of the work taking place in Orissa, particularly the work funded by the Government. It is a source of great satisfaction, if not pride, to the Government that the money that is being given to the Government of India for the project in Orissa has been put to such good and practical use.
I should like to add my plea to the Minister on a suggestion that was made by the hon. Member for Loughborough. The delegation said that, if money could be provided for it to purchase laporoscopes, it would enable it to expedite the programme of family planning in Orissa, particularly the districts with which we are associated. That extra equipment would be of immense value to the programme. Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not expect the Minister to reply to that suggestion when he answers the debate, but I hope that he will give us an undertaking that he will consider a request for that equipment if it comes from the Government of India.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Neil Marten): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) for raising this important subject. He, like other Members who have spoken an the debate, is a member of the British Parliamentary Group on Population and Development. I am most grateful to him and his colleagues in the group for focusing attention on this important subject. Since I have been Minister, that group has made a big impression on me and has brought to my attention the details that I should have known but did not. For that I am truly grateful.
I hope that my hon. Friend and the other members of the group are in no doubt as to the importance that the Government attach to population activities within the aid programme. That importance has been increased by the work of the parliamentary group. I do not dissent from most of the remarks that have been made in the debate. I cannot necessarily agree off the cuff with all the igures that were given fbecause they need checking. I would not say that they were all right. I did not disagree with many of the themes in hon. Members' speeches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough referred to my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology going to the Colombo conference on population control. After that, and before I became Minister, I had a long conversation with him about that at a Commonwealth parliamentary conference where that subject was discussed. He told me that one of the conclusions of the conference was that the higher the standard of living in a developing country, the lower the birth rate. That is probably accepted doctrine. Our aid programme as a whole has as a top priority the raising of the standard of living in the developing world. That in itself contributes towards a lower birth rate. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough said, national leadership is required in the countries that we are trying to help because without such leadership such a programme does not take off, however much one might try at local and national levels.
Our concern with the need to take population issues into account in the aid programme started in a modest way about 20 years ago. Since then, our efforts have grown until in 1980 we provided more than £7·5 million in aid funds to this sector. We hope that that will grow to about £11·3 million in the current year. I shall explain the reasons for that jump in a moment.
My hon. Friend talked about population figures. I think that he said that the population of the world today was 4·4 billion. It is interesting to look at the natural population growth rate: an average of about 3 per cent. in Africa, about 2·5 per cent. in Asia, 0·2 per cent. in Northern Europe and Western Europe, and 0·7 per cent. in North America and Japan. Within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries it is about 0·5 per cent. That illustrates the problem that the world faces.
The hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) quoted some figures, which I think were for family sizes and do not necessarily match the figures that I have just given. He also mentioned international conferences, and in particular was pleased to see the mention of this subject in the Cancun communiqué. I cannot remember whether it was on the agenda. I tried in various ways to get it put on, but, as I remember, the agenda was fixed by Mexico and Austria, and we did not have the final say on what was discussed.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about feelings within the Overseas Development Administration and whether population was taken into account in planning our aid. I think that it is. People probably vary in their enthusiasm for it. Some people may have a religious feeling about it. Broadly speaking, everybody tries, but we cannot do it on all occasions. In an answer that the hon. Gentleman will receive tomorrow I deal with Zimbabwe, a case in point where we cannot do it at this stage. I shall have a word with the hon. Gentleman afterwards and tell him why.
Before I review our performance in more detail, I should like to explain that we do not have a sectoral allocation for aid to population activities. We do not say that our aid budget is £1,000 million and that 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. will go to population activities. There is no pocket of funds within the aid programme labelled "Population", nor any target for population aid. That is how the budget framework is worked out.
The aid that we give in this sector encompasses a broad range of activities and is represented in all the major types of assistance that we give. The largest proportion of our population aid is given in the form of contributions to the multilateral organisations operating in the population field. Last September, at the United Nations conference on the least developed countries, I was able to announce increases in the contributions that we intended to give to these agencies, to £5 million in 1981–82 and £6 million in 1982–83. I hope that the House will agree that that will be money very well spent.
From within those sums we have now pledged £2·4 million in 1982–83 to the United Nations fund for population activities, which works with Governments to develop and run population programmes; £2·4 million in 1982–83 to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which works at the grass roots level providing family planning services through its affiliated family planning associations; £950,000 in 1982–83 to the World Health Organisation's special programme on human reproduction, which is concerned with world-wide research into safe and acceptable methods of contraception; and £250,000 in 1982–83 to the World Fertility Survey.
The second largest type of activity that we support is our bilateral programmes and projects. They are agreed on a Government-to-Government basis. Our spending in this

sector depends on requests from recipient countries and the speed at which prospects are implemented. We are sometimes held up, not so much through lack of co-operation from the country concerned but because of the inability to get on quite as fast as we can in Britain because of administrative problems. Because of that, spending in that important part of the programme can be variable.
For example, here I refer to a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and other hon. Members made—spending on bilateral projects fell from £1·54 million in 1980 to £1 million in 1981. That was to some extent responsible for the overall decline in the proportion of aid going to population activities from 1 per cent. in 1980 to 0·6 per cent. in 1981. This was not through any lack of interest on our part but simply because of unavoidable delays in implementation of our two largest bilateral projects in Orissa State and Minya, in Egypt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) mentioned the sterilisation machinery. I would rather not reply on that sensitive subject now. One must remember the unhappy example of India some years ago. If a project is put to us, we will always examine it, but we must be diplomatic.
We expect the bilateral projects to be more than made up in 1982, when we will have continued spending on the two large projects that I mentioned and on new projects in Kenya and Pakistan. We are not halting, as the hon. Member for Waltham Forest said. We have two other projects. If all goes well, we expect to spend more than £4 million on bilateral projects this year. I hope that that will go some way to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough.
In addition to these large-scale activities, we fund several smaller but no less important schemes. In the past year we have continued to work with voluntary agencies under the joint funding scheme. Population is a development sector in which much can be and, in some countries, is being achieved by non-governmental organisations. We recognise that. Population projects under the joint funding scheme receive 100 per cent. support rather than the 50 per cent. that is usually applied in other sectors. It sounds odd to be paying 100 per cent. to a joint funded scheme—one would have thought that it would have been 50–50—but, in view of the importance of the subject, we still call it joint funded as we work together on it, although we provide 100 per cent. of the funding.
We have continued our support for the overseas section of the Centre for Population Studies at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and at the David Owen Centre for Population Growth Studies at University college, Cardiff. Perhaps I should point out to those who are not acquainted with the subject that that centre has nothing to do with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
Those two organisations provide valuable training in demography and population dynamics and population studies with special emphasis on population and development. We have also continued spending on population research. Under it, we support a wide range of programmes of practical relevance to developing countries.
I hope that the activities that I have outlined will give the House a clear indication of the important place of population programmes in the aid programme. However,


we must not lose sight of the role of the developing countries in this sector. Much has been achieved since 1974, which, with the convening of the world population conference in Bucharest was a milestone in the international community's consideration of population issues.
In the early 1970s the world's population was growing at an alarmingly high and increasing rate. If something had not been done, disaster in terms of human misery and over-exploitation of the earth's resources would be a good deal closer than many believe it is today. The slackening in the rate of global population growth at the end of the 1970s represented an achievement for developed countries, international aid agencies and non-governmental organisations working in the population sector. Most of all, however, it was an achievement for those developing countries which saw the threat that increasing populations presented to their economic and social development and the pressure that more people would put on already over stretched education, health and social services, and then included national population programmes in their development policies.
What, then, is the challenge for the 1980s?
To use a common cliché, we certainly cannot afford to be complacent. I think that everyone will agree with that. During the course of this debate thousands of children will be born, mostly to mothers in developing countries. Ten per cent. of these babies will die before their first birthday. The actions that the world community takes between now and the end of the century will determine whether the year 2000 will herald another period of rapid population growth.
We must encourage and help those countries that have already recognised that population components need to be taken into account when designing and implementing general development plans to translate their policy statements into effective programmes and to devote

sufficient resources to them. We must continue to educate and encourage those countries that have not yet accepted the need for population policies—there are, I am pleased to say, relatively few in the developing world—and we must make an effort to understand the reasons for their reluctance, whether they be political, cultural or religious.
Ultimately, the responsibility for population growth must lie with national Governments. Developed countries and the international community can help, but their assistance is worthless without the political leadership, moral and financial commitment of the countries concerned.
In this debate, we have focused on the levels of spending within the aid programme on population activities alone. However, in order to reduce the global population growth rate it is necessary to create in the developing world a social framework that is conducive to fertility regulation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), in his very interesting speech, asked whether we were playing our part as a nation. I think that we are. It is up to all the nations of the world—the developed and the developing—to play their parts, but I think that this country is doing a good job and I hope that it will be even better as the years go on. This means helping the developing countries relieve poverty and raise living standards. It means reducing infant mortality rates so that parents can be sure that their children will survive. It means educating people to understand the advantages of family planning and to be able to make informed decisions on how many children they want and how to space them. It means improving the status of women. It means improving the quality and quantity of managerial manpower in the developing world to ensure that population programmes are well run. Those are aims that run throughout the aid programme and are not simply limited to the work that we do in the population sector.

Orders of the Day — Higher Education

Mr. Ted Graham: I have pleasure in introducing this debate. Some hon. Members may know that I am interested in education, but I do not profess to be a specialist in the subject. However, in order to speak on the subject one does not need to be such a specialist. One must first be a caring constituency Member. Another qualification is that I am a father with two sons and a wife who is a teacher and who was a mature student. In my constituency I have several units of higher education. Finally, I believe that I have the privilege of being the only Member of Parliament to be awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree by the Open University.
My anxiety concerns the future not only of education but of the nation. Conservative Members constantly refer to the seed-corn of the nation, particularly when talking about small businesses, and how that appears to be neglected and not given a fair crack of the whip. If we are to talk about seed-corn and the need to nourish it we must apply those arguments to education and opportunity. If we do not, children, teachers and administrators will be seriously affected.
During the debate my hon. Friends and I will be asking several questions. I am delighted to see that the Under-Secretary of State is in the Chamber. I know that he follows these matters closely and that he has left a good first impression of his care and concern for the future welfare and well-being of the Open University.
I begin with the events of July 1981 when a substantial shock was given to the higher education world by the decisions of the University Grants Committee and the advice, guidance or instructions—whichever word one prefers—that it gave to a range of universities. They were immediately plunged, as one or two people were moved to say, into devolving a strategy for survival. Many people in the higher education world saw the announcements in that light.
The impact of the announcements on Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, Bath and York universities was light compared with the effect on the universities of Salford, Keele, Bradford and Stirling. Some of those universities were docked by more than 30 per cent. of the money they had previously assumed and could have used. Phrases such as "We are bleeding to death" were used. Bristol university, which the Minister will know better than I, was requested to cut its budget by 15 per cent. Translated into logistics that meant that to maintain an adequate staff to student ratio the university was being invited to operate with a cut of 5 per cent. in the student body.
Those are the realities of higher education and the impact of Government policies. The Minister is familiar with the collective views of the Committee of Vice-chancellors and Principals, because in November last year Albert Sloman, its chairman, wrote a letter to the Minister which is now a matter of record. On behalf of the vice-chancellors he wrote:
We believe the Government's current policy towards the universities to be profoundly mistaken and highly damaging. It is a policy which will seriously impair the quality of the work of our universities and jeopardise the very distinctive contribution which they make within our system of higher education. It is a policy which will involve the loss of some 10,000 places for new home students in each of the next two or

three years, the very years when the number of qualified school leavers reaches its peak, there is a reduction in opportunity for young people willing and able to go to university of something like one in seven. It is a policy which, in our view, is likely to save little or no money in the short run since the savings on recurrent grants have to be set off against the cost of compensating staff for dismissal. If so, the damage to the standards both of university teaching and research, in some cases irreparable, and the sharp reduction in opportunity to those born in 1963 or after will, in terms of public expenditure, have been all for nothing.
The Minister will be able to set the same facts in a different context which is not so sensational, but the writer of the letter is no slouch. He tries to moderate his language and makes a case which is designed, not to inflame, but to impress.
The vice-chancellors recognised that not only would there be 20,000 fewer students in the universities as a direct result of Government policies but that there would be 4,000 or 5,000 redundancies in universities staff.
The letter continues:
We are, in comparison with our industrial competitors, a sadly under-educated and under-trained society … These are the reasons why we consider the Government's long-term policy for our universities to be fundamentally wrong.
Mr. Sloman is entitled to make his assessment of the consequences of Government policy, just as the Government are entitled to put in motion a policy which they believe carries out their economic and education policies.
We want to consider the impact of those policies, not merely in July 1982 but in July 1983 and July 1984. The cuts in cash and in other terms must have satisfied some end, but for the life of me I cannot understand how they make sense. We do not think that they make sense in the national interest. They do not make sense in terms of saving money when one considers the cost of redundancies. They do not make sense in terms of research and maintaining our high standards of education.
Education is now expenditure-led. Finance, not the quality of education, is now the dominating factor. A cash limits policy is now being operated. That reverses the policy operated in the Robbins era of 10 or 12 years ago when one could see a secure climate in which higher education could be planned and when there were long-range policies. They have been replaced by a year-by-year expenditure consideration. How should universities tackle planning in a period of unpredictable budget reductions? The Minister will be unable to tell us what financial picture will face the universities this time next year or the year after that. I am sure that he recognises that at this level of education it is necessary for there to be some certainty about the income that will be provided. It is clear that planning has been abandoned. When that happens, we degenerate into resource deployment or withdrawal.
One of the chief qualities of academic leadership is the recognition and encouragement of the qualities in others. The key to that is an ability to react quickly to changing circumstances, new opportunities and new ideas and to be able to think fast on one's feet. The university world has learnt to cultivate those traits and they are certainly needed now.
The funding of the Open University is somewhat different from the funding of traditional universities. Over the past two years the Government have seen fit to interfere with the OU's funding; and that has been observed with dismay by the OU's council. The OU has not escaped the economies and the Government's


strictures. I pay tribute to the valiant efforts of the staff at all levels. They are determined that the university shall survive. They are dedicated people. Many of them have worked for the OU for many years and they have seen a life's work put at risk.
The character of the Open University is unique. It is called "Open" because it is open to all. In 1972 the percentage of the student body in skilled trades, manual work, commerce and transport was 16·1 per cent. By 1981 it had risen to 23·3 per cent. Those engaged in shop and personal services increased from 4·4 per cent. to 6·3 per cent. The percentage of studying from their homes was 11 per cent. and it increased to 16·7 per cent. Those whose vocation was in education reduced from 30·2 per cent. to 16·4 per cent.
The Open University has often been called the university of the second chance. The first chance passes many people by because they are in the Services, engaged in bringing up a family, involved in a family business or looking after their career. Many of them are studying before they even begin their day's work. Many of them are snatching an hour or two during the day's work. When I obtained my degree, someone asked me "How did you study?" I replied "I did my studying on the Victoria line". I spent about 40 minutes twice a day travelling up and down the Victoria line. At the end of a week I was able to study for about six or seven hours. That is the sort of device that OU students cheerfully apply to make up their education.
There is a great difference in support for the Open University student and the normal university student. No question can be raised about a difference in the quality of the awards. The Open University awards are comparable at least in academic excellence and acceptability to the awards made in other universities. The cost of study at the Open University for a one-year course, when I took it in 1971–72, was £20. That increased to £120 a year in 1981. That increase is due partly to inflation and partly to Government policies.
To obtain a degree of six credits, the total cost to the student in 1982 will be £1,273. The 1981 figure was £1,107. That is an annual increase of 15 per cent. When one takes reimbursements into account, the cost of obtaining a degree has been increased by 22 per cent. Conservative Members argue that, if something is worth obtaining, it is worth studying and paying for and that, after all, the students get the benefit of a degree that may give them a better job or more satisfaction. But the lot of the Open University student, who is always studying part-time, is difficult.
Recently the Open University undertook a survey; and I shall inform the House of some of the observations. Of the students who were asked whether they found difficulty in paying fees, 50 per cent. said that either it was quite difficult or a severe hardship. Of the students who replied in that way, 56 per cent. were women and 44 per cent. were men. Significantly, among the lower income groups hardship as a factor in their thinking was related to income. Of those whose income was less than £5,000 a year, 74 per cent. said that to continue studying at the present level of fees was a hardship. Of those who earned between £5,000 and £8,000 a year, 60 per cent. said that it was a hardship; and of those with an income of £8,000 or over, only 38 per cent. said that it was a hardship.
The Minister should take on board another significant fact, which is that there is evidence that many more

courses offered this year are being declined by potential students. Can the Minister answer the following questions? When can he tell the House about his expectations of Open University fees for 1983? Can he provide an early assurance that, if any fee increase is imposed, the rate of increase will be no greater than inflation? Helpful responses would be of great value not only to the university but to the students.
The survey also showed that only 30 per cent. of the students obtained help with their tuition fees from local authorities. That means that 70 per cent. of students receive no assistance. For summer school fees, 58 per cent. receive some outside help, but 42 per cent. receive no assistance. In other words, 42 per cent. get no assistance towards an annual cost of £200 or £300 a year. It is significant, in this political debate, that the percentage of students who had assistance towards their summer school was 76 per cent. in 1978, in 1980 it was 65 per cent., and in 1981 it was down to 58 per cent.
Another significant factor is that 18 per cent. of the people in the survey said that they would decline to take on courses of which one element was a summer school, because the cost of the summer school would be a material factor. The Minister, who is a caring Minister in this respect, ought to take fully on board whether we are now, by fiscal measures, distorting the true concept of the Open University.

Mr. Reg Race: Before my hon. Friend moves off that point, will he draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there is a great discrepancy between the practices of different local education authorities in supporting students with assistance for their fees? There is a particular discrepancy between Conservative-controlled local authorities, such as Bromley, which do not give any assistance to students in their locality, and bodies, such as the Inner London Education Authority, which do. Could the Minister not do something about this and talk to his friends in his party?

Mr. Graham: I am sure that the Minister is aware not only that there are discrepancies but that, by and large, the picture presented by my hon. Friend is correct. I am not familiar with the political complexion of the councils that are generous, except that we know that as a general rule, when it comes to the question of education expenditure and discretionary grants, it is sad but true that the grant money that local authorities, even when they wish to be generous, have made available to them by the Governments and the rate support policy is becoming less and less.
I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be wanting to pay some attention to the level of grants. The Minister must defend the cut in the maintenance grant given to students through their course. The figures that I have show that in 1962 the maintenance grant was £335 in London, and in 1982 it is £1,900. However, if the £335 were uprated for inflation, the £1,900 should be £2,095.
Students in 1982 are having to study with £195 less than students in 1962. Elsewhere than London the figure was £320 in 1962 and in 1982 it is £1,595, when it ought to be £2,000. Students outside London are having to survive on a grant which in cash terms is £405 less. Can the Minister confirm those figures, because they are his figures, which he gave in answer to a written question a little time ago?
If the Minister does not wish to answer in cash terms, would he confirm another point? Taking 1979–80 as 100 per cent., when the grant was £1,245, by 1981–82 it had declined to 96 per cent. and in 1982–83 it has declined to 90 per cent. Over a period of three years—since the change in Government—students have had a reduction to only 90 per cent. of the grant of three years ago. There is the effect of inflation, but there is also the effect of Government policy.
The Minister must be aware of the devastating effect on education as a whole, and on non-mandatory students in particular, of the decline in the moneys available for discretionary awards. The Minister will also know of the HMI's report on discretionary grants. An HMI report on the effects on the education service in England of local authority expenditure policies for the financial year 1980–81 said, under the heading "Discretionary Grants":
Just under half of the authorities are showing a decrease in expenditure on discretionary grants. Six authorities have increased expenditure, three from the lower level baseline group. In the remainder, funding is unchanged. Economies are made in different ways".
It then goes on to list the ways in which economies are made.
The NUS has provided information about discretionary grants, and says:
Cutbacks in local authority finance have affected all services but discretionary award budgets have proved to be particularly vulnerable".
Bedfordshire county council has just decided not to award any discretionary grants for students in 1982–83. Birmingham city council is about to make huge cuts in its provision. This comes after several years of decline, during which Ministers have made few attempts to assess the extent of provision or to propose any remedies. I hope that the Minister will comment on this situation, and tell us what he does to assist local authorities which want to provide discretionary grants but which cannot do so because the money is not available.
In higher education there is a knock-on effect. The students who are frozen out of universities are told to take a course at a polytechnic or college. The students who had intended to take a course at the polytechnic or college and find their places taken by the university students, are told to study part-time and become a semi-skilled worker. So it goes on. In the end, the only significant statistic is the number of people who would be in some form of adult education but who are now in the dole queue.
Recently we have seen staggering figures of the impact of Government policies on university courses. I am told that 250 university courses have been dropped in arts and sciences this year—at Salford 20 courses, at Aston 10 courses, and at Bradford 20 courses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) will be interested to know about maintenance grants at Tottenham Polytechnic. The grant is £1,595, of which £940 is allocated for accommodation and meals, but at Tottenham accommodation and meals cost £1,320. So a consideralbe part of the grant is eaten up in that way.
It is ludicrous that the Government have increased grants by only 4 per cent. It means that students with parents on the average national wage will get £65 less from the Government, but the parents will pay £125 more

towards the grant. Since 1978, grants have increased by 39 per cent., while the retail price index has gone up by 51 per cent.
The Secretary of State has given local education authorities their marching orders. In the wake of the latest savage cuts in Government support, he has washed his hands of the agony that he and his colleagues have imposed on hard-working councillors and worried parents by telling them how to do the impossible.
In reply to a planted question issued yesterday, the Secretary of State said:
It will be for local authorities themselves to determine the balance of their expenditure between services, taking account of Government policies. I look to them to do their utmost to contain their pay and other costs and to manage their resources efficiently. I hope that they will then be able, without compulsory redundancies among teachers on any large scale, to avoid any substantial worsening in the present pupil-teacher ratio as the school population declines; to maintain the provision of books; to meet the growing demand from 16 to 19-year-olds; and to contract higher education in an orderly way."—[Official Report, 28 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 506.]
That is to treat local government with contempt. It is a recipe for continuing and escalating educational disillusion and despair. It will fuel the view among educationists, students and a growing proportion of the electorate, that the Government have relegated the education of our future generations way down on their list of priorities. I invite the Minister to refute that charge.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I shall not delay the House for more than a few minutes at this late hour. In those few minutes I should like to emphasise the arguments that have been put forward so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham).
I want to concentrate entirely on student grants, the main item that we are discussing in the debate. The low level of student grants and the cuts have a serious impact on the students and their families, on the universities, on the polytechnics and the various colleges, and on the economy.
Although there is little doubt that the cuts imposed in recent years have enormously worsened the level of student grants, we on the Opposition Benches cannot be smug. The sad fact is that student grants started at far too low a level. That is the key point. My hon. Friend talks about a 10 per cent. reduction since 1962. If one took the statistics at three or four yearly intervals over that period, one would, sad to say, find similar reductions in student grants.
Clearly, the level of student grants is too low, and that has been worsened by the astounding 4 per cent. offer for the current year. Although the statistics of recent years show a 10 per cent. reduction in students' real standard of living, the effect of that 4 per cent. figure—I am sure that the Under-Secretary would agree—is that at the end of this period the effective reduction in the standard of living of the great mass of students will be about 20 per cent.
However badly the past Labour Government treated the student population, there is no doubt that matters have been made worse by the present Government. The result is that students do not devote themselves to their courses but try desperately to find an odd bit of work here or there. I mean "try", because these days they may occasionally be exploited, but in the main the work just is not there. That real problem affects the whole nature of the student body.
The impact on the students is substantial. Numerous instances can be cited in which the performance of students has suffered because of the pressure of their continually having to think about meeting the cost of living. Students just cannot operate. Many of us speak from experience, although conditions formerly were much better than they are now. A student cannot work effectively under such conditions.
There is ample evidence that many students give up their courses purely because of such pressure. It is not only the student but often his family who suffers. The National Union of Students has said that some of the parental contributions are fictitious. That may be true for a few students. However, on the whole it is not that the contribution is fictitious but that most parents have to scrape the bottom of the barrel and make enormous sacrifices to keep their children at college. The problems have been greatly increased by that 4 per cent.
That is the general problem. There is a worse aspect. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton mentioned discretionary grants. I shall not discuss the Open University, as my hon. Friend is far more expert than I on that subject. However, there is a general problem with discretionary grants. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that there should be no such thing as discretionary grants. Once a student has the qualifications, and is accepted for any course, most of my hon. Friends and I believe that he should be entitled to a full grant to pursue it.

Mr. Graham: Perhaps I might read an extract from a letter that was sent to the Open University. It states:
I would very much like to see the end of the discretionary grants, with all part-time degree courses receiving mandatory grants which is the case, as you know, if students are on full-time courses. Full-time students are a far greater cost to the country since they require maintenance as well as the payment of fees".
My hon. Friend might be interested to know that that letter was written by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson).

Mr. Roberts: The Under-Secretary no doubt displays wisdom from time to time. Many Opposition Members believe that there should be no such thing as a discretionary grant and that a student who qualifies should have a grant to meet the cost of the course and of his maintenance. Often, many unemployed people—both young and old—would willingly take up full-time education if it were not for the fact that no money would be made available to them. The problem is now worse because of the extremely high level of unemployment.
There is no doubt that the number of discretionary grants has fallen steadily. The National Union of Students has also provided me with a paper. I do not believe everything that the NUS tells me, but it cites several authorities, including Bedfordshire, in which the number of discretionary grants has fallen by about 40 per cent. in the past three years. As has been suggested, the damage has been much greater in Tory-controlled authorities than in Labour-controlled authorities.
The number of discretionary grants awarded by many local authorities has fallen by about 40 per cent. That has had a devastating effect on many courses. The peculiar thing is that the Government claim frequently that they believe in revitalising the economy by providing all the new management techniques and the scientific know-how required. Many of the courses—diplomas in management

techniques, and so on—depend upon discretionary grants. The Government are sabotaging their own case. The only courses that do not rely on discretionary grants are the first degree and HND full-time courses.
The Government are undermining their policy by reducing the number of discretionary grants for courses that are necessary for the revitalisation of the economy. The Government cannot pass the buck and say that the reduction is being made by the local authorities. One of the worst features of the Government's policy is that they get the local authorities to do their dirty work. The Government may say that the actual reduction in grants has been a tiny percentage only—no doubt the Under-Secretary will tell us later—but they are squeezing the pips out of the local authorities and the discretionary grants are vanishing overnight.
That is a position that cannot be allowed to continue. One of the greatest indictments of all Governments—Labour and Tory alike—in post-war years is that the proportion of children from broadly working-class families who attend university has been falling over many years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton said, the number of students and the level of training is less than that of most of our world-wide industrial competitors. We cannot allow our industrial competitors to be better trained than we are.
Equality of education is a fiction because there is no money available to allow the majority of people in the community to benefit from higher education. Whatever previous Governments may have done, the present Government have a responsibility to increase substantially student grants and make them more widely available, if they believe in educational equality and the revitalisation of the economy.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: rose—

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: If the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) can contain himself, he will find that in the House we are counted by number, as in the good book, and not necessarily by subject. I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge, like the other fellows of All Souls here tonight on the Government Benches, will give me the courtesy of a hearing.
We are having this debate because we think that it is crucial that the public should appreciate the Government's forcible restructuring of education. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) and Cannock (Mr. Roberts) who have spoken with characteristic clarity and passion. My wife is a graduate of the Open University and whenever my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton speaks about discretionary grants and of those who have come to higher education late in life the House hears the authentic voice of experience which counts for more than the glib clichés that so often distort our debates.
The background to the debate is simple. It is of a cut in student numbers and in expenditure on higher education between 1981–82 and 1984–85. As the Under-Secretary came late in the day to the Department and sits at the right hand of the Secretary of State, he should tell us whether he can with equanimity contemplate the figures that I am discussing. Let me give him a few.
Although expenditure on higher education overall will rise in cash terms from £2·75 billion in 1981–82 to £3·1


billion in 1984–85, in fact it represents a drop in resources of about 10 per cent. in real terms. The number of teaching posts in the sector as a whole will be reduced by over 10,000, or one is six of the overall total of people teaching in higher education. By 1984–85 there will be at least 30,000 fewer undergraduate and postgraduate students than in the academic year that we have just completed. The annual undergraduate intake will have been reduced by 18,000. The projection for universities such as Salford is that they should be taking in two years' time one-third fewer students than they are at present; and still they are asked to be viable institutions. They are not told that they must adjust the unit of result and take more students with the same level of academic staff; they are told that there must be an absolute reduction in both numbers and expenditure.
Most crucially, if we are considering opportunities for students, the position is that the age participation ratio will have fallen from 12·9 per cent. to just over 11 per cent. One in eight students will be excluded who would have been included in higher education in this academic year but for the cuts.
The Secretary of State was in the Cabinet when the then Government introduced the framework for expansion White Paper a decade ago. It stated that we should realise the constraints on public expenditure but looked forward to an age participation ratio of 22 per cent. by 1981. We cannot say that that was in the mad days of Barber and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The then Secretary of State for Education and Science was none other than the present Prime Minister, although I have heard her say on television and in other places that the document was never meant to be a framework for expansion. But that is what it said.
Although we do not have a White Paper so courageously entitled, we now have a framework for contraction, and it is that that we are discussing. As I have tried to show, the contraction will strike savagely at the prospects of many young people who have believed throughout their formative years that at the point of entry into higher education they would have the necessary currency and qualifications. To frustrate them at that point is one of the cruellest contricks of any post-war Government.
The number of 18-year-olds will peak in 1983–84. It has been rising by about 3 per cent. a year. Even in the 1990s the figure will be only 5 per cent. less than in the peak year, yet we are saying that there will be fewer opportunities and places and less money. That is not a policy that we want any humane or enlightened Government in this country to adopt.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: No other Government are doing it.

Mr. Whitehead: That is the point. If we were complacently contemplating our record in education and reskilling the vast majority of our young population so that they were better fitted for the complexities of the world of the 1980s and 1990s, perhaps there would be philosophical justification for entering into that argument. I fail to see it. Our record in many of those significant areas is worse than that of our predominant European and North American competitors.
There will be fewer university students. There will be fewer polytechnic students. In the last academic year there were 5,000 fewer university places. What happened? Anticipating the trend that was imposed on them by the Government, students went to the polytechnics. In many cases the application levels for the polytechnics rose above the level of places, even at the projections for last year. In some cases there was a disproportionate effect on the universities. However, I do not believe that that will happen in the coming year.
There is now a body called the national advisory body, presided over by Mr. Christopher Ball of Keble college and the Under-Secretary of State. They are now saying not that there will be a worsening of the staff-student ratio or a diminution of the unit of resource but that in absolute overall terms they want fewer places, fewer courses and fewer institutions in the public sector of higher education, beyond the decimation that has already been visited on the universities.
Mr. Christopher Ball is a candid man. He says more and is more open than Ministers. At the CLEA conference a couple of weeks ago he said:
While some of the retrenchment can, no doubt, be achieved in some institutions by further reducing unit costs, a substantial part of it must be met by a reduction in the provision (by amputation, that is, rather than by further slow starvation), and—in some cases—this may mean the total withdrawal of pool funds from a number of institutions. It would be easy to share out the 10 per cent. cuts equally to all".
It is easy for him to say that. It is not so easy when one is at the receiving end. He stated further:
you wouldn't need a NAB to do that: it could be done across the desk in the DES.
NAB is intended to—and it intends to—discriminate: that is, it will try to locate and define the 90 per cent. (or so) of the LAHE provision which is most valuable and recommend its preservation and protection at the expense of the remaining 10 per cent.
The projections were being invited from the various institutions. He went on to say:
we seriously expect to propose cuts of 100 per cent. in some cases.
Therefore, we are contemplating not merely an overall fall in the number of university students but the depression downwards throughout the system through missed opportunities of people who will take their opportunities at other levels, thereby displacing others who will get fewer opportunities, while at the bottom there will be no opportunities.
In the public sector cuts are contemplated over and beyond what the public sector has already suffered. The public sector is not as adequate a publicist of misery as are the universities and the vice-chancellors. Now it will face at the minimum 10 per cent. cuts and the wholesale closure of some institutions. The Government are contemplating cuts, which will reduce the opportunities for a generation of potential student.
I say in all seriousness to the Under-Secretary precisely where that impact falls. It falls in all cases on the marginal students. Those of us who have discussed those questions with the new vice-chancellor of Salford university, Professor John Ashworth, are impressed with the case that he has made. Salford university is threatened with 44 per cent. cuts by the UGC. In such an institution a student may come forward with less than brilliant A-levels. However, he may come out of an institution such as Salford university with a good degree, good job prospects and wider horizons in life.
When the UGC went on its peregrinations that factor was not taken into account. Those considerations mattered less to the UGC than did the centres of excellence, given the traditional loyalities of the present members of the UGC.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is not the trouble that those considerations were taken into account, but the formula that the UGC worked out to make the cut included the A-level grades of undergraduates? The result was exactly as my hon. Friend describes. The university that succeeds in lifting someone with three E grade A-levels to a first-class honours degree gets chopped, but the university that succeeds in lifting someone with three A grade A-levels to a first-class honours degree gets enhanced funding. There cannot be any sense in that.

Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend is correct. The concept that the UGC failed to grasp and which the Government, in their willingness to instruct the committee at that stage, omitted was what I call the concept of added value in higher education. There is added value in taking the student with three E grade A-levels and making of him more than might have been expected at the point of intake.
It is easy to turn Old Etonians into fellows of All Souls. Without disrespect to the Under-Secretary, we all know that such people arrive at university with certain advantages, which will be honed and polished while they are there. It is a different matter to enhance the value of the educational experience that the student at the margin receives.
It is because the institutions in the public sector and the university sector that were attempting to do that were disproportionately hammered by the UGC that I have lost all confidence in the committee, and I think that that is a widely held view among the Opposition.
The Under-Secretary said recentlty that the Government did not propose to instruct the UGC but would let it continue to go along its own way. That sits ill with the letter that the Secretary of State sent to the UGC a week or so ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, has been involved in a frank and comradely dialogue with the chairman of the UGC for some months, and he may be able to tell us whether he regards the Secretary of State's communication as amounting to an instruction. As Private Eye would say, I think we should be told. We ought to know whether the UGC is to be allowed to continue to perpetrate the sort of errors that have marred its performance over the past year or whether there will be a measure of instruction.
As the Under-Secretary chairs the national advisory board, we ought to know how he proposes in that role—in loco Parkes, as it were—to avert in the public sector the errors that the UGC has committed.
The questions raised by my hon. Friends relate not so much to the overall cuts in student numbers, ferocious as those have been, as to the position of the individual student. We have to consider that impact. There is another sort of marginal student, in addition to the one to which I referred earlier.
A marginal student may get a place; he gets the currency that buys higher education, even when the rate of exchange is constantly being shifted against him by the

Government, but finds that the number of discretionary grants by local authorities has been shaved, almost to zero in the case of some part-time courses.
A student may find that, in addition to all the other difficulties and disadvantages, the parental contribution is now such that he is receiving less from his LEA and his parents are being asked to provide more, at a time when costs have continued to rise, because of inflation and other reasons.
I am glad that the Secretary of State has returned at this stage, because he has been asked about the student grant. He makes frequent appearances, which are eagerly awaited, before the Select Committee, when he tells us in his jovial way that, while more may not necessarily mean worse, fewer probably means better, and he makes other similar statements. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked about the student grant and whether we were now discussing the students' position and their hardships in terms of public expenditure considerations or the welfare of the students, he said in April that it was possible that the students would suffer substantial real hardship and that it was not easy to find a part-time job. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has discovered that. He also said that the students should try
part-time earnings … or loans or stinting or a combination of these three".
The Secretary of State must be cured of that Chatterton complex. Starving in garrets is not much of an answer to give to the student population in the immediate future. We have not done a service to the students by telling them that their increase should be of the order of 4 per cent., wildly out of line with the fees that they have to pay, the costs of residence, tuition and so on, and way behind the allocations that even this Government have made in their recalculation of such matters as supplementary benefit. How can it be right to tell students, in the position that they are in, that the increase that they receive will be only of that order and so far out of line with the other calculations that have been made?
I do not believe that the Government retain any credit or credibility with the student body as a whole as a result of the way in which they have operated. Indeed, for a party that at least flirted with the idea that the means test and the parental contribution might be abolished, their main achievement has been to bring the parents of a further 20,000 students into the category of making the parental contribution. We all know of the shortfall, which may be 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. or more, in the paying over of that contribution by parents.
I want to end as I began, by referring to the White Paper "A Framework for Expansion". In the next few years we should be looking at expansion, asking ourselves not how we can keep people out of the universities, polytechnics and colleges but how we can encourage more and different people to come in, taking different routes, moving at different paces; how we can encourage them to do that during the period of their schooling; how we might pay them the kind of educational maintenance allowances from the age of 16 to 18 that will encourage them to stay on at school and be part of a wider intake into higher education in the future. We should be examining every possible way of increasing the age participation ratio, not diminishing it.
Therefore, I end by asking the Under-Secretary two or three questions. I am sorry that I have to put them to him, because I know that he is not responsible for these policies.


In such distinguished company I would not talk about organ grinders and monkeys, but we should not be talking to the first violin when the conductor is here.

Mr. Kinnock: The composer.

Mr. Whitehead: We all know what happens when a composer conducts his own piece.
The Secretary of State should be replying to the debate, because these are his policies. He will be mute throughout, and the Under-Secretary will have to reply. That is their problem.
My first question is this. The Secretary of State said in the presence of his hon. Friend that the Robbins principle was being reassessed; he recently told the Select Committee that it was not dead but sleeping. How is it being reassessed? What form of access to higher education shall we offer the student body beyond the years 1983–84? What lessons are we learning from the wholesale fiasco of the allocation of the finances in the university sector and most probably, in the public sector in the past two years? Is there now to be instruction to the UGC or is there not? Is there to be reform of the UGC or is there not? Are we to have public debate on and public criteria for the way in which the finances are given out? That is the essence of the debate—the role of the institution and the catastrophic impact it has had on the universities and student numbers in the past two years.
What would the Under-Secretary of State say to two categories of student? First, what would he say to the qualified student without a place who worked hard to get the necessary qualification at the age of 18 and who now finds the door slammed in his face? Secondly, what would he say to the student who has achieved a place but finds that he has inadequate means of support—other than the wise advice that he could try stinting—to go through the process of higher education? It is all very far from the world of All Souls—I do not mean that in any abusive sense.
Those of us who were the first generation in our families to go into the world of higher education believe that we have a definite responsibility. The Secretary of State took a rather different route from most Opposition Members. If he thinks about it for a moment, he will realise that that is true.
We need an effort of understanding and comprehension of the problems that are now being faced by people who are being shut out of the possibilities and potentialities of higher education who would have expected it, post Robbins, at any time in the last generation.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I sincerely apologise to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) for not being here for the whole of his speech. I thank the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) for introducing the debate although, as he will understand, I do not agree with all that he said. It is a key issue, yet one of the most neglected subjects in all our debates. We all owe the hon. Member for Edmonton a considerable debt for raising the subject.
I should like to emphasise an aspect that has not been touched on—unless the hon. Member for Derby, North did so while I was briefly out of the Chamber. It is often forgotten that in higher education—I do not mean just

universities, but all institutes of higher learning—we are providing, for admittedly a minority of people, the opportunity to acquire the love of learning for its own sake.
I become worried when some of my right hon. and hon. Members talk about higher education as though it is merely a provision for technical expertise. It is much more than that. That attitude makes it difficult to explain why we invest the sums we do in higher eduucation. We invest in brains and people for the future, and potentialities unknown.
I should like to draw attention to the report of the Overseas Students Trust, in which I was involved, and to the problem of overseas students. As the Member of Parliament for Cambridge I obviously have much to do with matters pertaining to students and grants. The House should be reminded that the Overseas Students Trust is financed entirely by business. Although it is not at all an academic organisation, it has come to the clear conclusion that Britain needs a real policy on overseas students.
The decision to charge full fees in 1980 was right but perhaps rather excessive.

Mr. Kinnock: Oh.

Mr. Rhodes James: I am trying to make a serious point. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that before 1980, £150 million of British taxpayers' money was being spent indiscriminately on a series of grants for overseas students. That is not a decision that I could seriously have supported.
I spent 18 months on this, and what I and the Overseas Students Trust are suggesting is a policy that does not go to that extreme but tries to provide a serious policy for overseas students that will benefit not only developing countries but our own institutions and which the British taxpayer could support. That is exactly what the trust's report seeks to do.
Certain priorities and recommendations are set out in chapter 7 of the report. I add to them my personal view that we should concentrate, although not exclusively, on three categories: first, Commonwealth students; secondly, postgraduate and research students; and, thirdly, certain exceptions such as Cyprus and North America. Cyprus has no university of its own, so first degree courses should be made available here, and the North American connection, although it is often ignored, is a very strong link between this country and North America.
As I have emphasised before, the subject of overseas students involves certain unquantifiable factors. The value is not only to the students who come here from abroad but to our own students. Exposure to and understanding and knowledge of other cultures and experiences provides considerable additional value for our own students. That is unquantifiable, but I know from my own experience how important it is. The element of friendship and understanding, too, is unquantifiable but it is a matter of profound importance.
I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton that higher education should not be considered in isolation. One of the great dangers is talking about universities and higher education generally as though it were a completely separate issue when, in fact, it is part of a much wider problem. I am increasingly worried that in the House and in the general debate about education we fail to understand that the present situation is unparalleled in that all the


assumptions of the 1944 Act, which were quite right at the time, and many of the assumptions on which we have operated since then, are no longer really relevant to the society in which we now live—a society in which it will be very unusual for a person to remain in the same profession or specialty for the whole of his or her adult working life. That being so, we must surely review very carefully our understanding of what education really means.

Mr. Kinnock: I entirely agree about the need not simply to modernise but constantly to revise perceptions in education so that they serve the generation being educated.
I must disagree, however, with the hon. Gentleman's view that the 1944 Act did not involve eternal verities. Sections 41 to 43 of that Act provided for the supplementation of education, not on the basis of people having had some form of education before but for all who wanted it. All that has subsequently been absent is the availability of resources to allow people effectively to undertake it. Those resources are now being cut still further. Why does not the hon. Gentleman simply ask for more money instead of dodging piously round the subject as he seems to be doing?

Mr. Rhodes James: When the Labour Government were in office, the total education budget was less than £8 billion. This year it is nearly £14 billion. That is an increase of more than 50 per cent. One cannot seriously argue that that is a cut.

Mr. Kinnock: It is a massive cut.

Mr. Rhodes James: It is not a massive cut. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not trying to make a party political speech. This is a deeply serious subject. I am simply saying that I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton on discretionary grants. If we are to regard education as a life-long process in which retraining and re-education will be crucial, we must look very hard and seriously at some of the fundamental assumptions that dominate the education Acts.
I should hate this subject to become part of the political game. It is much too serious and important for that. I emphasise that the love of learning for its own sake, particularly by those who want to come from overseas, should never be lost sight of. If we do, we lose sight of the real glory of higher education.

12 midnight

Mr. Christopher Price: I refer to the Overseas Students Trust report. It is a good report, but not particularly brave or radical. Its authors clearly cast it in sheer terror at what would happen if they asked for anything approaching what they really wanted. Therefore, it is drawn in modest terms.
This is an area where the Government must act. It is as much the responsibility of the Department of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs as it is of the Department of Education and Science. By chopping £10 million from Malaysia we have certainly lost £200 million or £300 million worth of exports. I am sure that in historical terms the decision in May and June 1979 will be seen as the most lunatic decision in their own self-interest of any British Government since the Second World War. Another case that has been argued is that £2 million will enable us to make a "Euro-concession" for Cyprus.
When the Government changed to what they call full cost fees for overseas students the universities asked whether they could admit the students at marginal cost. The Government replied that the Treasury allowed them to only look at the full cost and that marginal cost was irrelevant. Two years later the Government produce a report halving the home student fee with the justification that they want to pitch that fee below the marginal cost of taking extra students. One year the Government say that marginal costs are irrelevant, but two years later say that they are important.
It will be instructive to see whether the Department of Education and Science has the slightest idea of the marginal cost. In March the Public Accounts took evidence from Sir James Hamilton and Dr. Edward Parkes. Sir James Hamilton was asked to state the marginal cost of a student at a university. After some "humming" and "umming" by Sir James, the Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), said to him:
So you are taking the marginal cost at around £2,000?
Sir James Hamilton replied:
That is my estimate.
So, the permanent secretary at the Department of Education and Science thinks that the marginal cost of a student in our universities is £2,000.
The Chairman of the Committee then set to work on Dr. Parkes. He said:
But if you are teaching extra students in the same building with the same number of lecturers. I cannot see where you get a £2,000 marginal cost.
Dr. Parkes said:
My figure is related to your assumption that if the situation was as you described it the marginal costs would be very small".
According to Dr. Parkes the marginal cost is almost nothing, and according to Sir James Hamilton it is £2,000 a year. That is an illustration of the Department with which we must deal.
In that context I should like to consider the letter from the Secretary of State to Dr. Parkes. It is written by a Department which believes that marginal costs are £2,000 to the chairman of the UGC, who thinks that marginal costs are almost zero. I do not know whether we are discussing a dialogue of the deaf, but the document is worth examining. It reads:
Dear Dr. Parkes, When I visited the Committee with Mr. Waldegrave on 29 April I said that I hoped to let you have shortly a letter which would offer some guidance about the Government's view".
The letter then offers four-and-a-half pages of guidance in closely typed A4.
If the Department is to change the whole concept of its relationship with the UGC and offer guidance it cannot continue to answer questions by saying "This is a matter for the UGC." It cannot have it both ways. If the UGC is in charge, the Department must leave the UGC to do the job. If the UGC is to be given severe guidance, the Department must take responsibility.
I recently asked the Under-Secretary whether it could be of interest to the Department if it heard that a university was to make itself bankrupt. The answer was that that was a matter not for the Department but for the UGC. That might have been all right under the arm's-length policy operated before 14 July 1982, but after that date and the issue of the letter, such an answer should not have been made. I hope that the Minister will instruct his functionaries, such as are here and such as are asleep in their beds, that they should not issue such answers.
I return to the letter, some of which is superb "Nineteen Eighty Four—speak." Praising the UGC, it says:
In planning for the lower level of funding proposed the Committee have rightly tried to strike a balance between protecting scholarship across the whole range of university subjects, and seeking to enhance the contribution which the universities make to commerce and industry and the production of wealth.
If one tried to say that in any university one would be greeted with hollow laughs. The cuts make neither objective possible. Try this for size. The letter continues:
It is essential that the universities should maintain and develop the capacity to respond positively and speedily in terms both of structure and staffing to changing national needs.
What on earth does that mean? Universities have no money except for ongoing, historic expenditure. They have to reduce staff and yet the staff that they would desperately like to keep go, on redundancy terms recently announced by the Government, while the staff that they would like to go dig in and stay. The idea of trying positively and speedily to respond to changing national needs is just a joke. The Minister should ensure that his staff does not write such sentences. The letter continues:
I endorse the reference in your letter to universities of 20 May to the vitality of the universities of being able to initiate and sustain new developments in teaching and research.
We all endorse that. We would love to initiate new developments in teaching and research. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) endorses that. The letter does not explain how it is remotely possible to do that given the present level of funding.
The letter refers to the biotechnology initiative that has taken place involving the UGC. A Select Committee report has been issued today on biotechnology and due respect is paid to the recent initiative. Four universities have received comparatively generous sums and 12 have received tiny one-research-assistant type sums. That has been done in a commendable effort to save research places in biotechnology.
I shall refer to another part of the letter. I am not blaming the Under-Secretary of State, but he should read these letters before he allows his Secretary of State to sign them. The next part is headed "Staffing". The paragraph states:
Concern that the limited opportunities for recruitment of staff will deny the universities a sufficient supply of young able people to ensure the continuing vitality of teaching and research is widely shared.
By whom? Does the Minister share that concern? If he does, what is he going to do? If he is honest about the level of resources that has been made available by the Government, will he stop being hypocritical and say that he shares the concern? He cannot have it both ways. The paragraph continues:
I hope that the Committee will give particular attention to the present situation and to what might be done to secure improvements and will give me their views in due course.
Having read that sentence I am sure that the committee would say "Thank you very much, Sir Keith. We have considered this and we need some more money. That is the only way in which we can secure improvements."
The crunch comes at the end of the letter under the heading "The longer term". This is where the letter becomes extremely heavy and a new policy is introduced. It states:

In this connection you will be aware that I have both privately to you and the Committee and publicly before select committees expressed the view that it might be appropriate for Ministers to take more responsibility that they have hitherto for determining priorities affecting the broad character of the allocation of resources to the universities.
Fair enough; if that is the policy, that is the policy. The paragraph continues:
The Committee are of course uniquely placed to assess and advise on the needs and capacities of universities both in relation to education and to the research base. But the main thrust of policy for the universities must take due account of policy for higher education as a whole, and of national social and economic policies; and at this level there will be some strategic decisions for which it would be appropriate for Ministers to take explicit responsibility and answer to Parliament.
If that is the new policy, and if Ministers are to take some explicit decisions and the UGC no longer has the responsibility of assessing how much money the universities need and reporting to the Minister, the whole relationship has changed. It is a different relationship and it means a committee of the Department of Education and Science.
The Minister must recognise that, in the letters, he has changed the relationship that has existed since 1919 between the Department and the UGC. It was clear in 1979 that the UGC said to the Government "We cannot finance the universities within the total that you have allowed us." It is well known that the entire committee was close to resignation. That might have been the more honest course, which would have allowed the Department to run the universities directly, as it has pleaded in evidence to the Select Committee that it wishes to do. It wished a broad steer, and this letter is the nearest thing to a broad steer that we have.
The letters were issued to the press, but they should have formed a statement to Parliament about the changed relationship between the Department and the universities. The historic role of the UGC has been to assess how much the universities need, to tell the Department and then to distribute the money. The Minister is now saying that the role is different. It is not to assess how much money the universities need but to assess how much they need within the Government's social and economic policies. Need is now defined in the Government's and not the UGC's terms.
The second thing that the Minister said as a result of the letter is that it is no longer up to the UGC to decide certain priorities. The Department is taking over the exercise of some responsibilities. If that is so—the Minister can contradict me if I am wrong—it is a change of policy of such overwhelming importance that it should not have been announced in two letters to Mr. Ball and Dr. Parkes but should have been announced in Parliament. I hope that the Minister will now make that statement.

Mr. Reg Race: Tonight we have the opportunity to debate not only the Government's policy but the policy for higher education that they should pursue. The destructive tactics that the Government have employed to cut resources in higher education have done nothing for hundreds of thousands of working class youngsters who do not have access to higher education and who will not have access to it in future because the Government have no idea about future changes in policy that would open such opportunities to them.
In asking what policy the Government should follow on higher education, some principles suggest themselves. The first is one that the Government have abandoned—the old and good Robbins principle that places should be provided for those who need or wish them. The second principle that is of fundamental importance is that the system of higher and further education should attempt to increase the competence of those who perform many different jobs, both for the public good and for their private gain.
Thirdly and the most important objective of all, the access to higher and further education should be opened out to provide channels to individuals who have not gone through the normal method of acquisition of educational assets—in other words, those young people who have not obtained the requisite numbers of O and A-levels to enter higher and further education establishments as now conceived.
Fourthly, there should be a policy of increasing and improving the real level of the student grant to the students in further and higher education, particularly full-time students. The grant has been at a pitiful level ever since the 1960s and has declined in real terms over the past few years.
Lastly, in relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) has just said, we should open out and democratise the whole system of planning in higher and further education to make it accountable to Parliament. We should end the farce of the UGC allegedly planning for the universities, and particularly for that part of the higher education sector that it is supposed to be responsible for. Everyone knows that it does not set the real policies, which are established on the ground floor in a particular university or institution, and it does not control the level of resources that are allocated to it by the Government. That opening out and democratising of the planning of the higher education system is long overdue.
Those principles are the cardinal ones that the Government ought to follow and are not because they have different priorities. Those priorities are summed up in the one phrase that they are interested only in restricting the numbers of students in higher education on the ground that educational expenditure must be controlled. There has been, in the speeches of the Secretary of State and other Ministers in his Department, no justification on educational grounds for the policies that they have pursued.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) made great play in his speech to the House on 18 November last year of the way in which the Government are pursuing a policy that implies that more means worse. He was right to say that, because it is true. The Government should be ashamed of themselves for pursuing that policy.
That attack on the higher education sector is an attack on a number of key principles. It is an attack on the Robbins principle, which has been destroyed by the Government's action in chopping 20,000 places from the higher education sector over a period of three years. Secondly, it is an attack on the principle of equal opportunities for different classes and sorts of people. In particular, it is an attack on the provision for working-class people and an attack on the provision for women.
The third principle that is under attack from the Government is that of the educational funding provided by the local authorities. This point has been lost so far in our

debates on higher and further education. The attack on local authority spending implies an attack on the provision in schools, but it also implies an attack on the level of provision in polytechnics and further education, and in the provision of mandatory and discretionary grants for students in the straightforward higher education sector.
Let us examine what local education authorities have been forced to do, or what they have chosen to do, because of the Government's policy. First, they have been forced to be extremely tight on their definitions of the courses and individuals eligible for mandatory grants. Constituents come to see me at this time of year to complain that their local education authorities have not given them a mandatory grant—sometimes for the second or third year running—when they feel that they are entitled to one. One of the consequences of the attack on local authority spending is that local education authorities are forced to make pernicious judgments on individuals which are wholly unjustifiable.
Let me give an example which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), who has now left the Chamber. It concerns Cypriots. These people have been resident in this country for some time, but many education authorities do not regard them as ordinarily resident, especially if they entered the United Kingdom in 1974, after the invasion of Cyprus, and have not been accorded the formal status of refugees. Many education authorities say that they are not ordinarily resident, and therefore they are not eligible for mandatory awards.
Another way in which local education authorities are forced to restrict the access of individuals to higher and further education is by defining the courses that can be undertaken by individuals over a certain age who wish to take a course which is eligible only for a discretionary grant. A number of local education authorities say, for example, that people over the age of 25 who are resident in their area can obtain discretionary grants only if they propose to undertake a course which is a straightforward course leading to a first degree in a university. Other courses at a polytechnic or further education college to change the level of training that a person has—to become, for example, a medical secretary—would involve a discretionary grant given by a local authority, and if that person is over the age of 25 the grant is often not given because discretionary grants are available only for courses in a university for a first degree.
The third way in which local education authorities have been forced to cut back because of the attitude of this Government and the Ministers at the Department of Education and Science is in funding to polytechnics. My education authority, the London borough of Haringey, works in conjunction with two other local education authorities, Enfield and Barnet, to fund the Middlesex polytechnic, where many cuts in services and jobs have been made. There have been cuts in services as a result of the polytechnic sacking a great many employees, cuts in services to students because of restrictions on purchases in the libraries, and also cuts in the courses. That is because the Labour-controlled borough of Haringey, which has protected its education spending, has not managed to persuade the Conservative-controlled boroughs of Enfield and Barnet to do anything other than comply with the Government's request, and cut education spending.
Thanks to the Ministers on the Front Bench tonight, the Middlesex polytechnic has had to cut drastically its


services to students in the past and will have to do so in the future. That is a disgrace, because the Middlesex polytechnic and others like it provide an important service for people who are facing their second chance to obtain qualifications to better their lives and broaden their experience later than is normal in higher education and, on many occasions, working from a low academic base.
It is precisely those people—the young unemployed searching for an educational opportunity, the black people who are often discriminated against in the education system anyway and who look to education to better their chances, and women who wish to enter the labour market and who are discriminated against in the present education system, as we are all aware—who are being denied access to higher and further education by the Government in a way that no other Government since the war have done.
That completely undermines the Government's argument that they are putting forward a new education policy in higher education. They are not. They are simply cheese-paring and cutting and making local education authorities follow the dictates of the mafia in the Department of Education and Science. That means hardship for individuals and for local authorities and a reduction in the real level of provision in our society.
When we talk about the higher education sector, it is important to say that we are not simply interested in protecting institutions from the effects of public spending cuts; we are also interested in protecting individuals and groups of people in our society. Such cuts reduce an individual's self-esteem, future earning potential and competence to deal with a job or the bureaucracies that rule one's life. It also reduces a student's purchasing power.
To reduce the purchasing power of a student is deplorable because that purchasing power is low enough already. It certainly was when I was a student, and it is now. The real cuts that have been imposed are a disgrace, especially for those in the middle income brackets where the parental contribution is important but is often not made.
When I was at university many of my friends in that position did not get their parental contribution, either in whole or in part. I am sure that that is even more true today, given the decline in our economic performance, the rise in unemployment, and the cuts in real incomes that have affected many people over the past few years. To cut the real level of the student grant is a disgrace.
The education objectives of the Government are, first, to destroy educational opportunities for many and to protect them for the few. They are not really concerned about the level of educational qualifications and competence for a large group of people in society, only in perpetuating the performance of an elite. They are also interested in imposing, for the first time since 1944, a cash-led rather than a demand-driven system of higher education. They are picking on students and on education institutions because they believe that they will not fight back in a principled way on such issues.
The Government have, to some extent, been surprised by the way in which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of United Kingdom Universities, the polytechnics and the students organisations have fought back. I assure the Minister that that fight will continue. We have an obligation to criticise the Government's actions

and to point towards future Labour Party policy in this area. The principles that I expressed at the beginning of my speech are plain for all to see. Given the different state of our society—a point alluded to by the hon. Member for Cambridge—we now have an opportunity to alter access to our system of further and higher education and to make it less dependent on academic qualifications and on traditional methods of reaching university. We should restructure further and higher education along those lines.
We shall not see any such restructuring or positive action from a Government who have cut provision, who have failed to produce any reforms, and who have undermined the living standards of students. The Government's policies, attacked so forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), have been shown up by the debate. I hope that our education institutions and students will take careful note of what has been said and will draw their own conclusions from what has been said tonight.

Sir Paul Bryan: I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate. I had planned to speak in debate No. 17 on overseas students, which will probably not now take place before dawn. I am therefore taking this opportunity to debate that subject.
Among the Conservative Party's commendable policies when it took office was a policy to cut Government expenditure. Every Department had to make its contribution to the savings, with the exception of favoured areas such as defence, the police and so on. When it came to the turn of education to make its contribution it was decided to cut down on the money spent in support of overseas students. However that decision may seem now, if it had been carried out carefully and in a discriminatory manner, it would not have been entirely unreasonable.
Between 1970 and 1978 the number of overseas students increased by 150 per cent. Their composition showed that there had been no selection. Many thousands of Iranian students were subsidised although they did not need such help. The money could have been spent more effectively on many of our Commonwealth students who are not only worthy of higher education, but certainly need the money. Carefully selected savings might have been justified, but, instead, the Government imposed full-cost fees, accompanied by the withdrawal of grants to institutions for all overseas students. At the time the alleged saving was about £100 million, or £170 million at 1982 prices. We could debate all night whether that actual saving was made. Whatever the national savings the cost in terms of foreign relations and trade has been horrifying.
In the past 20 years no action has embittered relations with our friends abroad as much as this. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said, one has only to go to Malaya to discover what they feel and what action they have taken. They have been so offended that they are turning their trade away from us. Cyprus, which depended on this country for its university education, is deeply hurt. Hong Kong, which I know well, is undoubtedly offended by what has happened. There has been a sharp fall in the number of Hong Kong students seeking education here. They are now going to other countries, and that tendency will accelerate over the years if we do not do something.
I give credit to the Under-Secretary and the Government for recognising that a great blunder has been


made. They have realised that, whatever we decide to do, we cannot just return to the status quo. Before a new policy is decided upon, a tremendous amount of thought must be given to which national groups might benefit the most, which we want to subsidise, and benefit our trade and foreign relations. Such matters must be studied. There is a vast amount of work to be done.
In this regard we are incredibly lucky to have had the report of the Overseas Students Trust. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) on the work that he put into it. For the Government to have been served up with that massive document is a wonderful start to the production of a new policy. I welcome the report as a basis, not just for an immediate policy but an enduring one, for overseas students' fees that subsequent Governments can continue and develop.
I like the report's recommendation that students from British dependent territories should pay the home level of fees, thus removing the anomaly by which a student from Hong Kong or the Falkland Islands can be asked to pay up to 12 times as much for a course as a student from the European Economic Community. The Overseas Students Trust views the problem as multidimensional, and I welcome that attitude. The problem falls to be dealt with by three Departments—Education, the Foreign Office and Trade. I believe that it is more a foreign affairs problem than anything else. I understand that the joint committee studying the problem is led by the Foreign Office. I am glad to hear that, because that is from where the lead should come.
The multidimensional aspect of the problem does not only affect British trade, industry and diplomacy but the amount of money spent by foreign students on British goods, the academic stimulus that they engender and the international dimension that they add to life in British universities.
In its study the Overseas Students Trust stated:
Dependent territories surely have the strongest claim of all to preferential status since British political control implies reciprocal obligations towards their inhabitants … for the inhabitants of the dependencies the rate of fee charged to their students is as much a question of rights, status and obligations as of expense.
I underline that in respect of Hong Kong.
It seems possible that some cost-sharing arrangement can be worked out with the wealthier dependent territories if any preferential treatment were to be accorded them.
I believe that it is possible to come to an agreement with the Hong Kong Government by which they subscribe towards the cost of a scheme which should consist of students from Hong Kong or the dependent territories being regarded as British students for the purpose of fees.

Mr. Kinnock: I am broadly in strong agreement with what the hon. Gentleman says. How can anyone disagree with the benevolent views expressed by the trust? But if the provision for youngsters from the dependent territories was as successful as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) would wish, and the British taxpayer had to fund it to the tune of £150 million a year, would his attitude to its efficacy and desirability change?

Sir Paul Bryan: I do not avoid the question by calling it hypothetical. But even if the Government could not see their way to spend any more money over the next one, two or three years, we still want to get a new policy under way

and get our priorities right. Something can be done, but until one knows the financial position one cannot say exactly what.
Again I underline the fact that there are Governments such as that of Hong Kong who so much value the facility that they would be willing to contribute. That should be investigated. The Prime Minister is about to visit China and Hong Kong. I do not doubt for a minute that she will meet requests on this subject from everyone whom she meets in Hong Kong.
The early-day motion on student fees has been signed by no fewer than 150 right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House. That shows that any steps that the Government wish to take will have the support of both sides of the House.
On 9 June my right hon. Friend the Secretary, of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the House that the Government welcomed the Overseas Students Trust report and would further study the suggestions. I urge the Government to ensure that the process is completed as soon as possible.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Waldegrave): We should all be grateful to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) for giving us the chance to debate higher education. It is not a privilege that we have had recently.
Some of the most eloquent speakers whom we have had the privilege to hear have contributed to the debate, although we did not hear the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) who is perhaps the most eloquent after- the leader of his party. But, curiously enough, the message was encapsulated in a smaller space, although with less eloquence, in the third word uttered by my daughter. The first was "cat", the second was "badger", as she had a toy badger that she liked, and the third was "more". I suspect that that is an early word of many children.
I started to make a note of the items for which we were asked for further major expenditure, but I ran out of space. We have been asked to make all discretionary awards mandatory, to fund part-timers, to replace the cuts and presumably restore the real increases in recurrent grant, to make a great expansion in adult education, presumably going back to the old system, and to allow for increases in the funding of overseas student fees. To be conservative, that would cost about £1 billion. To make such demands is the privilege of any Opposition I believe that all Oppositions behave in that way. However, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bedwellty because in the past he has been honest enough to say that it would be beyond reason to say that the cuts would be restored by an incoming Labour Government.
I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) did not expand on that point. Behind the phrases "democratisation", "open access" and so on there was a theory of higher education that could be offered as an alternative. If it had been, it would have added an extra dimension to the debate, but instead he said that he wanted more resources for every worthy objective.

Mr. Kinnock: I should like to help the Minister and also disabuse the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). On the basis of the 1979 Labour Government White Paper on expenditure, compared with the actual expenditure now and taking into account exactly


the same conditions of falling pupil rolls and so on, the Labour Government would have been spending, in real terms, at 1980 prices, £974 million on education more than the Government are spending. By 1982 prices it would have been £1,403 million. If the Minister has difficulty in finding funds, all he has to do is to prevail upon his hon. Friends to change monetarist policies, and the money is there.

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not want to so enrage the hon. Gentleman that he makes an eloquent speech in an intervention. I think that I would bet my last dollar on this. If the Labour Government under their then leader, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), had been returned at the last election, with the team of the right hon. Members for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) they would have been more formidable than their successors. There might have been a change to the plans in the White Paper when the Labour Government where faced with the reality confronting the Western world.
The Government have faced up to a number of difficult decisions on priorities. The origins lie far back, in the last Social Democratic Government of 1969, when the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) made her famous 13 points, which she made as challenges to the higher education system. They were not taken up. As the former vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge said, in the fact that the university system did not respond intelligently to those points lies many of the subsequent troubles.
Some specific points have been made. This has been such a wide-ranging debate on higher education that I am sure to miss out some. I hope that hon. Members will accept my assurance that we shall go through all the speeches carefully and take up the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Edmonton referred to the Open University. I join with him in his tribute. The Open University has had some protection. When I have visited it, I have not heard so many complaints as the hon. Gentleman has reported. The move of BBC facilities there has been completed. There is a remarkable collection of capital facilities, unequalled anywhere in the world. It is impressive to see the stream of visitors from overseas.
If money were unlimited, one would like to do something for those part-time students, as for the many other part-time students in the system, not only at the Open University but the 350,000 others throughout the higher education system who are on short courses and part-time courses. However, we are up against severe resource restraints.
The hon. Gentleman reminded us of the Robbins principle. He asked whether the Government had abandoned it. It is not so much that the Government have abandoned it as that the Robbins assumption of 2½ per cent. real growth in the British economy, on the basis of which the report was written, has abandoned the Government. As a wise economist, Lord Robbins knew that there were resource implications in all that he said and he made assumptions about what resources would be available. Unfortunately, those resources have not been available.

Mr. Whitehead: Why does the hon. Gentleman, of all people, propose that resource restraints in higher education have to be accepted, constant and taken for granted when such assumptions are not made in other areas of Government expenditure, such as the police?

Mr. Waldegrave: There are large areas of public expenditure that are protected and where spending is being increased. One major such area is the training of young people, to which £1,000 million is to be devoted through the youth training scheme next year. If the most expensive part of the post-16 education system—the universities and higher education—makes some contribution to the establishment of that major training programme, that is not something of which to be ashamed.
The current age participation rate of 12·9 per cent. is comparably the highest in history, though that cannot disguise the fact that Government plans imply, as the overriding resource restraints force them to imply, a diminution. However, it would be fair to acknowledge that within resource restraints that have already been applied the local authority sector has shown that it must have contained considerable under-used resources.
I pay tribute to much of the work of the Middlesex Polytechnic, which I have visited. It has achieved outstanding quality in its microelectronics work, but in some areas it has higher unit costs than comparable institutions. I do not single it out for that, because, of course, there must be some institutions that are above the average. However, we have had to ask the local authority sector and polytechnics to stretch their resources, and they have done so and have shown that there was room to take in a considerable number of extra students. They have done that and I do not hear complaints that standards are under pressure.
In the universities, the alternative view was taken, which was that the unit of resource was so stretched already that we had to ask for a limitation of numbers, because otherwise the unit of resource would be stretched to such a point that research, the other great output of universities, would come under serious pressure.
The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) made an eloquent speech and drew attention to one of the relative failures of the British education system since the war when he pointed out that working-class participation in higher education has not increased as we all hoped that it would. The problem lies further back than the higher education system, because the proportion of working-class children presenting themselves for entry is pro rata with the numbers who get in. The task is to persuade them to stay on. There is something in the schools that is not working. Perhaps the simplest answer would be to pay education maintenance awards—another few hundred million pounds—but it is not fair to blame higher education for not having drawn in more working-class children. It is to do with the schools system and much more complicated cultural phenomena.
The hon. Member for Edmonton asked some specific questions about the Open University. I cannot assure him that the announcement of the fees will be made any earlier than it was last year. It will be made in the early autumn, after the Government's general public expenditure survey exercise has been completed. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any guarantee yet about fee levels, but in terms of recurrent grant the Open University has been among the better treated universities.

Mr. Graham: My prime concern, and the main subject of this debate, is the effect of Government policies on students. There is a vast student body already beginning to wonder whether to carry on under the present terms and the increase, which we hope will be minimal. We say that it should not be above the level of inflation. If it is, in effect the Minister's decisions will diminish the number of people who can continue Open University courses.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right: there is a narrow judgment to make between pressure on resources and the point where there is a serious effect on students. I pay tribute to those who, like the hon. Gentleman, have the dedication to finish those courses. The level of commitment is very high.
I also pay tribute to the new vice-chancellor, with his advisers and colleagues, for the direction in which he is taking the Open University in terms of short courses and continuing education in technical subjects. This is an exciting development, with industry coming in and in many cases jointly developing courses. This is entirely sensible and is of great interest for the future.
Many hon. Members have talked about the level of student grants. No one denies that the settlement for 1982–83 puts further pressure on students who are not rolling in money even if their parents contribute or even if they are on full grant. But the position is not as catastrophic as some describe it. I take the percentage terms, because the figures that I gave in the answer that the hon. Member for Edmonton quoted were on what has now turned out, I am happy to say, to be a slightly pessimistic inflation projection for this autumn. The projection was 10 per cent., and the figure looks like being of the order of 8·5 per cent., in which case the drop in the real value over the past 10 years will be 4·7 per cent. That is a serious drop, but it is not a catastrophe. For the London-based students the position is rather the reverse.
The National Union of Students and Opposition Members always take not 10 years ago but 20 years ago. Of course, at the end of a long period of Conservative Government the position was the best that it has ever been, and that is why 1962 is always taken. But I do not think that anyone said in 1972 that there was a catastrophe, and I do not think there will be catastrophe next year either.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: To talk about percentages is meaningless. Four per cent. of £1,500 is £60; 17 per cent. of a judge's salary of £40,000 is £6,800. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. Waldegrave: I accept the point, but the point that I was trying to make, led down the path of percentages by the hon. Member for Edmonton, was that the situation was not all that different from what it was 10 years ago, and it was not catastrophe then.
All of us would have liked to be able to find the resources for this matter, as for many others, and in particular for raising the parental contribution threshold, which I think would have been the first priority for additional resources, but the outcome is not the catastrophe that it is sometimes described. The hon. Member for Wood Green fairly said that the students most under pressure were likely to be those in the lower to middle group, whose parents will not be able to contribute. That is among the highest priorities for the future.

Mr. Kinnock: We are getting a little tired of the constant repetition of the theme that the situation is not a

catastrophe. That is little comfort to people who are subject to the fact that over recent years there has been a continuing, and now increasing, divergence between the real value of the income they can expect from various sources as students in higher education and the retail price index. They are getting poorer annually. At what point will the hon. Gentleman start to recognise the disincentive effect on students of becoming poorer?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman makes the case best in terms of disincentive effects. With the other half of his argument he is pointing out that a greater number of applicants than ever are coming forward. I am not sure that he can have both legs of that argument, at least not in close juxtaposition with, perhaps, some time in between.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) took us briefly into the territory of the new National Advisory Body. I have often noticed that his reactions to it are rather hostile. I hope that he will ask the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), to take him out to lunch to persuade him into a slightly less hostile attitude. Perhaps Front Bench spokesmen must be asked to pay on such occasions. The Select Committee has understood the purpose that lies behind the body. I understand that the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) whose earlier work formed a substantial foundation of the NAB, also sympathises with it. It is not designed to produce cuts. It is designed to produce a more coherent strategy. If, as we all hope, resources are increased once again, it will come into its own as a body that will ensure that increased resources are spent wisely, just as I hope that it will be able to limit damage in a period of retrenchment.

Mr. Whitehead: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. When a body that is not designed to produce cuts produces cuts, what do we call that? Design failure?

Mr. Waldegrave: It has been quite easy to make the hon. Member for Bedwellty laugh. It is always nice to see a man happy in his work. The hon. Member for Derby, North did not make a profound point. I do not think that he would have contributed a point of that level when we were discussing these matters in Yale last year.
It is a perfectly clear distinction to say that there is a body that is meant to apply, select and discriminate in the best use of resources, which is separate from the decisions about the totals. There is a resource function and there is a separate policy function that says what overall resources are available. Whether one is expanding or diminishing, I should have thought that a sensible mechanism for resource allocation is a part of good government.

Mr. Christopher Price: I fully admit that the Select Committee has welcomed the National Advisory Body as a slightly more coherent way of doing a rather catastrophic job. Is the hon. Gentleman implying that because it is not designed to make cuts, the Government are adhering to the policy—which has existed for some time—of even handedness between the universities and the public sector in any cuts that are made.

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government's policy has been one of even-handedness. I hope that if we can align the UGC and the NAB together


with the voluntary colleges—either in direct communication with the Department or aligned with the NAB—they ought to move away from a broad and crude formula to the application of resources where they are best needed. That may be across the whole higher education sector. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that may be some way in the future.
Perhaps now is the time to relieve the hon. Member for Lewisham, West of his fears. I am not sure whether they were fears or hopes of a major policy change, as represented by the 14 July letter. The matter was discussed at great length in the Select Committee. No profound change of policy is involved. As many hon. Members have regretted, we are now beyond the framework for the working of the UGC that was inherent in the adoption of Robbins. The UGC has not operated in a vacuum since 1963. It has been working within a broad framework that has been politically accepted first by the then Conservative Government and secondly by the Labour Government, who gave broad guidelines.
Previously, in the 1950s, there had been various occasions such as the development of the great "three sisters" of technology, when Ministers gave a clear spearhead to the system. The idea that, because of lack of resources and because we have moved into a different world, Robbins is no longer wholly relevant does not mean that the development of a new framework, which will be very much a co-operative venture—the letter offers some guidance but also seeks the UGC's opinions on important matters, so it must be a two-way operation—introduces into the university world anything wholly new.
Some areas will remain wholly with the UGC and the peer group judgments between institutions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is right. As I believe I said when the Select Committee last discussed this, we are moving slowly and exploring here.

Mr. Christopher Price: On many occasions in the past, under both Labour and Conservative Governments, the UGC has felt it to be its duty to tell the Government of the day that the global sum being offered was simply not enough and it felt that it had the right to make that argument. The final paragraph of the July 14 letter, referring to social and economic priorities, seems to suggest that the UGC no longer has that right or duty but must simply take the global sum as it stands and not argue with the Government about it. Can the Minister give any reassurances on that?

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament over, say, the overall size of the university system has never been in doubt. When the chairman of the UGC, Dr. Parkes, came to the Select Committee he said that of course the Government were within their rights to decide on a university system of whatever size they chose and could persuade their colleagues in the House to vote for, but they could not ask for the impossible and if they did, the UGC had a duty to point that out. The memorable phrase "disorder and diseconomy" resulted from the UGC's response to what it regarded as too rapid a cut.
I envisage exactly the same kind of role for the NAB and we have negotiated that this should be so. The

chairman of the NAB will go to the Secretary of State if he feels that he is being asked to do something inherently self-contradictory or impossible.
I do not believe, however, that the UGC historically or the NAB now should set itself up as a rival to Parliament in determining the overall amount of national resources to be put into the system. The distinction between policy, which this House must arrogate to itself, and resource allocation and rational professional judgments is clear, and I think that hon. Members who pretend that it is not are doing so only for the purposes of debate.
No doubt I have missed out some of the specific points raised in relation to universities and polytechnics, but we shall read Hansard carefully and try to pick up any that I have missed.
We should, of course, like to provide more resources for discretionary grants. The fact that behaviour differs from one authority to another is in the nature of the animal because the awards are discretionary. In fact, we have done rather better in terms of the intention than we may have been given credit for. From 1980–81 to 1982–83 the amount of money allocated to local authorities for discretionary awards has increased by rather more than the rate of inflation. I recognise that local authorities are under great pressure in other respects and may not have chosen to spend the money on discretionary awards, but that is in the nature of devolved government.

Mr. John McWilliam: Does the Minister accept that in areas such as Gateshead where a youth unemployment rate of more than 50 per cent. has arisen there will naturally be great pressure on discretionary grants, which will simply not be available?

Mr. Waldegrave: Of course, the pressure is natural, but the intention is that the resources should be there. Many authorities are showing others what can be done in proving that it is possible to maintain a decent level of discretionary awards.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and Howden (Sir P. Bryan) for raising the separate and very important subject of overseas students which we might well not have reached if we had stuck to the original schedule.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge outlined his priorities. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Howden welcomed the Overseas Students Trust report, as I do. It lays down the possibility of an enduring policy. There was an inherent instability in the old open-ended subsidy system, which was recognised by the Labour Government because they started to tinker with quotas, although they were not successful. They recognised that the 300 per cent. increase in the numbers between 1969 and 1979 was an open-ended commitment that the British taxpayer could not for ever pay for.
I accept my hon. Friend's criticism that it would have been better to have had policy guidelines laid down before the changes. The Overseas Students Trust's attempt to lay out a new policy framework was right. My hon. Friend is also right to say that, although the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in the lead, specific contributions from other Departments need to be recognised in the decision-taking system that we set up.
The Department of Education and Science has a specific interest in bringing in first-rate students to this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge


said, it is of value to our students and university life to have the best international students here. We must match that interest with our resources.
There is also a trade interest that we should like other Departments to recognise. There are various Foreign and Commonwealth Office interests, in which they must take the lead. My hon. Friends outlined their priorities. We are now in the consultation period. We shall respond seriously and quickly. The inter-departmental official machinery was set up in advance of the report so that we shall not waste time and Ministers have been meeting to discuss the matter. I must warn my hon. Friends that resources are strained, but as the Overseas Students Trust said, considerable improvements can be made by the reallocation of existing resources.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge for his work on that report and in producing in a short time a major work that will be definitive in this area for many years to come.

Mr. Roland Moyle: Have the Government conducted a study on how much money will be gained as a result of their new policy on student grants compared with the amount of income the country is losing as a result of the Malaysian policy, stimulated by the Government, of prohibiting British investment?

Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Gentleman will have read the previous publication of the Overseas Students Trust and will have studied the detailed work of Mark Blang on this point. It shows that it is much more difficult to prove a simple monetary gain than one might think. It is another case of an area of policy and clear priority into which we are putting money at the rate of £50 million or £60 million this year and where an exaggeration of claims does not help good policy-making.
We have covered a wide area. I have no doubt missed out some of the nuggets and contributions of hon. Members. I shall endeavour to reply to them by letter. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edmonton for giving us an opportunity to canter around this territory again before our summer holidays.

Orders of the Day — Health Care (Inner London)

Mr. Alfred Dubs: For many years people have been paying lip service to the need for more effort to be put into primary health care services, but very little has been done about the matter. That might be because we have put too much emphasis on hospitals. Health authorities have tended to be more concerned about buildings and influenced by the weight of medical opinion that has, on the whole, tended to concentrate on hospital services.
The Acheson report stated that there was a need for urgent action. The report was published in May 1981, since when there has been not a glimmer of response from the Government. The Government have not commented on their intentions. The main purpose of the debate is to find out the Government's response to the many sensible suggestions in the report about primary health services in inner London.
The report is not radical. All it says is that it is about time that inner London caught up with the rest of the country. It makes a modest proposal and I am surprised that Ministers have not expressed their views on it.
Inner London's problems are difficult. The British Medical Journal of 30 May 1981 states:
Britain's inner cities have some of the worst social and medical problems combined with some of the poorest primary care services … Many of inner London's difficulties are ones about which the National Health Service can do nothing. Compared with the average for England and Wales inner London has more poorer people, more elderly people, more people living alone, more foreigners and immigrants, more single-parent families, more homes lacking basic amenities, generally poorer environmental conditions, and greater population mobility. All of these factors are known to be associated with greater morbidity and mortality, and it is not surprising that, as the Royal College of General Practioners' report has shown, there are more of such problems as tuberculosis, abortion, admission for mental disorder, and suicide.
I agree that the problems are not of the Health Service's making, but it has to cope with some of the problems. Cuts in acute hospital services and local authority cuts have resulted in a diminution of social services for the elderly and have made matters worse. Increases in unemployment are related to an increase in the number of people suffering from depression.
This is not the time to go into the Black report in detail, but it demonstrated a striking
lack of improvement and in some respects deterioration, of the health experience of the unskilled and semi-skilled manual classes (class V and IV), relative to class 1 throughout the 1960s and the early 1970s … a class gradient can be observed for most causes of death being particularly steep in cases of diseases of the respiratory system.
In other words, the unskilled and manual working classes in inner London suffer particularly in health terms.
General practitioners have a key role in primary health care. Most primary health care services are inter-related, but it is worth examining the pattern of primary health care in inner London. GPs in inner London are older than they are in other parts of the country. In inner London about 18 per cent. of general practitioners are aged over 65 years compared with about 6 per cent. in England and Wales. The 1979 figures tell us that there were 52 GPs in London over the age of 70, five over 85 and one over 90. It is difficult to believe that doctors of that age are able to cope with the pressures that are inevitably imposed upon general practitioners in inner London.
The second feature of general practice in inner London is the unsatisfactory premises from which many GPs work. It is interesting that the King's fund, in combination with the medical architectural research union, has developed an experimental programme of adapting existing and unsatisfactory GP premises to show what can be done by using the buildings that are available rather than taking the view that the problem can be solved only by providing new buildings.
It has been suggested that general practitioners in London should play a much greater role in paediatric screening, which would be desirable in seeking to prevent the present mortality rates. However, it is obvious that many GPs, because of their inadequate premises and for other reasons, could not cope with that rather ambitious screening programme.
Another feature of general practitioner services in inner London is the balance between those who work in health centres, those who work in group practices and those who work entirely on their own. The statistics produced in the Acheson report show that in London a larger proportion of GPs do not work in group practices compared with elsewhere. In inner London, 59 per cent. of all GPs do not work in group practices compared with only 28 per cent. in England and Wales. In my constituency, which was covered by the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth area health authority, which has been replaced by the new district health authorities, the figures show that about 56 per cent. of GPs are not in group practice. That AHA covered both inner London in Wandsworth and the outer London areas of Sutton and Merton.
There is a fairly large proportion of GPs in inner London who have rather small lists. The Acheson report reveals that 17 per cent. of all doctors in inner London had lists of under 1,500 compared with only 7 per cent. in England and Wales. That poses problems when an elderly doctor wants to retire and a younger GP is wanted to take over the practice. A small list cannot sustain an adequate livelihood unless the GP wants to spend a large proportion of his time in private practice, which many of us consider to be utterly undesirable.
It seems that the family practitioner committees should exercise a greater level of responsibility in these matters. There should be a greater degree of manpower planning exercised by the committees to ensure that when GPs retire and cease to practise they are replaced by those who can provide the basis for a satisfactory GP service. The committees should take upon themselves greater responsibility in considering the type of premises from which GPs operate. It would not be a bad thing if the committees were to set up minimum standards and use their influence to ensure adherence to them.
It is an interesting footnote, but I understand that recently the Department of Industry made available £2·5 million to enable GPs to develop computer systems, presumably for their medical records. Many GPs operate from premises and in conditions that are so backward that it is almost laughable to suggest that they might take advantage of the Department's gesture. They need the money spent on much more basic aspects of their operations than the more sophisticated area of computer systems.
It is extraordinary that, at a time of high unemployment, there is a serious shortage of both

community nurses and health visitors. The reasons for it are interesting and worth developing. I suggest that too few people are trained in those skills. There are difficulties in operating in inner London. Motor cars are required and many nurses find that, with the wages that they receive, they cannot afford to run one. It would be worth one's while to consider whether they should be provided with motor cars for their work by the health authorities to which they are responsible. There is a disturbingly large turnover of community nurses and health visitors in inner London, presumably because they prefer to go to the less pressurised parts of Britain where working conditions are more congenial. If too few community nurses and health visitors are being trained, it may be worth while to consider financing their training nationally rather than leaving it to the hard-pressed area health authorities.
It is generally agreed that it would be desirable for community nurses and health visitors to have better links with GPs. One model that has been tried in some parts of Britain—indeed, even in some London practices—is that a group practice of GPs should have integrated with it a team of a community nurse, a health visitor and possibly one or two social workers seconded from the local authority. The difficulty with such an approach, although it has much to commend it, is that too many GPs in London operate single practices and they could not cope with such attachments. It would be easier if they were attached to a group practice. It also means that a GP must have an approach to his practice that would make it easy for him to co-operate fully with his support team. Many GPs would not take easily to operating in that way. That has implications for the way in which general practitioners are trained and their attitudes towards working in inner cities.
The report has an interesting table showing the rates of attachment of nurses as recorded by GPs in 1974. In inner London, 25 per cent. of all GPs had nurses attached to the practice, whereas in England and Wales the figure was 68 per cent. There is a clear need for inner London GPs to catch up with the practice in the rest of Britain. However, there are difficulties because of the number of single practices in inner London, the fact that many practices are small, that many GPs are elderly, and that perhaps their attitudes are such that they do not wish to move in that direction.
However, I suggest that the way in which those services—community nurses and health visitors—operate could benefit from a review. Such a review, which should go beyond the Acheson report, might come up with conclusions that would be beneficial to the way in which those primary care services are operated. It is not satisfactory now and the fact that there is a shortage of people may cause one to reflect that one should improve the service.
Inner London, with an increasing proportion of elderly people, is precisely the area where primary services have a major part to play. Improvements in those services would have a large impact on the elderly population in inner London. There are more isolated elderly people in inner London than anywhere else. Because of housing difficulties, their children must move away and the elderly, through their isolation, are much more dependent both on local authority social services and on primary care services so that they can continue to live in their own homes and be kept out of institutions.
Any of us who meet elderly people in our inner London constituencies will know how difficult it is for many of


them. Time and again we are approached by elderly people or their children, who beg us to do something about their housing difficulties so that they can live closer together, and the elderly will not be so dependent on these services. All too often this is not possible because of the housing crisis in inner London and we are left with elderly people who are dependent on the services. Any improvement in these services would quickly pay dividends.
If we review these primary services, we find what has been called a planning vacuum in London. The difficulty lies in the structure of the regional health authorities. I have for long believed that there should be a regional health authority covering inner London because this would make it easier to plan services for areas similar to each other. The RMAs have cut London into four cake-like segments, where they are under the pressure of increasing population in the green belt and the outer London suburbs, and have to balance the pressure on their resources between those areas and the deprived inner London areas. This makes it difficult for the RHAs to allocate resources in the most useful manner.
Having a planning body, a RHA covering the whole of inner London could be of benefit only to the health service in London. I have been arguing this for years, but no one has responded to the need. However, I wonder whether there is not some way in which we can have, on a permanent basis, a way of planning services to help the disadvantaged inner London area. I appreciate the difficulties, as there would be an overlap of authorities, and the RHAs could conflict with the planning needs of inner London, but there must be some way in which the RHAs can get together and go in for more planning. Presumably this would involve a district level integration of some of these responsibilities so that some of the primary care services can be better planned. I do not know how far one can take this plan, but there is some possibility that improved services would result.
One of the conclusions that one comes to about this is that, although some of the proposals would cost money, many of them are relatively inexpensive. Therefore, the Government's view that no more money can be spent on the Health Service, and that there should be further cuts in London, does not provide a good enough excuse for not doing something about the proposals in the Acheson report.
I hope that the Minister will take this to heart. We need some will and determination. The people of inner London are disadvantaged and could do with better health care. The real need for development is in the primary health care services. We have the right to ask for a positive response from the Minister and positive action to improve the health care for the many people in inner London who need it greatly.

Mr. Roland Moyle: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs), who has so ably introduced this subject. In doing so, I utter a warning to the House and to the Government. One could represent, as I have, a London constituency for about 10 years, which is referred to in the Acheson report as an inner London constituency, without realising the extent of the problems that affect general and family practice in many parts of inner London.
The problems have to be looked for, but they are there and they can be horrendous. There are two basic reasons

for the failure of family practice in inner London. The first is that in the last century London had a proportionally greater concentration of population than it has even today. Therefore, it was an ideal place for the construction of large teaching hospitals. About a dozen were built because there were plenty of bodies available on which the trainee doctors could practise. They gave excellent technical service, given the conditions of the art at that time, and as a result people in inner London developed the habit of going to the teaching hospitals instead of to their family doctors. That started the rot—if I may put it that way. It has continued, to a greater or lesser extent, to the present day. It may be because Lewisham has never had a teaching hospital that we have escaped many of the problems with which the Acheson report deals. We have deficiencies and problems which there will be time enough to debate on another occasion, but I particularly want to focus on those with which the Acheson report deals.
The second reason is that a number of less than worthy general practitioners realised that the inadequacies of the family practitioner service in inner London provides an excellent structure on which to fashion a parasitic growth, which meant the minimum commitment to the National Health Service and the maximum commitment to private practice. Most of the inner London areas, of course, lie only a short distance from that lucrative field of private medical practice—the centre of London and the West End.
Those two factors have led to a continuing reliance by people in inner London on the big teaching hospitals' out-patients' department. The tradition has built up over many years that if something happens to a person, he goes to the out-patients' department. The technical assistance provided there is excellent, but there is an absence of continuing care, which is probably the single most basic principle of family practitioner service.
The general practitioners whom I have described spend the minimum amount of money on their surgeries. Some surgeries are very poor. I described one some years ago as being like a ganger's hut underneath the railway arches, and I was not exaggerating. These doctors are keen on building up their own income, and as a general rule they therefore do not wish to combine with partners in a group practice. As my hon. Friend said, there is a high concentration of general practitioners working on their own.
These general practitioners work with minimum lists. If a GP has a patient list of 1,000 patients, he qualifies for the basic allowances of NHS practice. Having done that and ensured a fall-back income for himself, he then feels free, with a minimum commitment to the NHS, to indulge in his proclivities to get income from the private sector. That has a serious effect, because the Medical Practices Committee, which has the job of recommending the number of doctors for the country generally, tries to get one GP to about 2,500 patients. On that criterion, the inner London areas are substantially over-doctored. Therefore there is a tendency to steer aspiring doctors away, thus making the problem infinitely worse.
These general practitioners not only expend their efforts on the minimum number of patients, but they devote the minimum time to that minimum number of patients. There are many examples of GPs who live nowhere near their premises, who hold surgeries for one and a half hours in the morning and one and a half hours in the evening, and disappear in between times. If one wants to contact the GP, a telephone call will probably put one in touch with


the deputising services. I do not want to enter into a lengthy debate this evening on the value of deputising services. They may well be technically good, and the doctors may be good, but they cannot provide the continuous attention which is the basic hallmark of general practice.
There is the maximum disincentive to introduce a young doctor into such a set-up. If an elderly doctor with 1,000 patients dies, no young doctor is particularly anxious to take over such a list because he would have to exist in relative poverty for several years while he built it up to 2,500 in order to earn a decent National Health Service income.
The whole position leads to the vicious practice of notional retirement, whereby those general practitioners who before the age of 65 have devoted their efforts to a proper list of 2,000 to 2,500 patients, retire at 65 and, because nobody wants to take over their practice, return to work the next day, drawing their pensions with a patient list of 1,000 and the basic Health Service allowances. As has been said, there are many elderly general practitioners in inner London.
All the problems of a weak practitioner service are compounded by the fact that the stable inner London population is often deprived, with a substantial proportion of low income earners, elderly frail people, single parent families and so on. Such a population is also to a large extent mobile and rootless. Young people move in to study and then move out, without a great deal of money to live on, as the Minister might have heard had he listened to his colleague answering the previous debate. Tourists drift in and out. Commuters arrive and leave daily. A large immigrant population may, until recently, not have appreciated the standards of medical care that could be achieved in Britain. In addition, there are the homeless and rootless—not to mince words, the tramps.
The solution to all that is an early retirement scheme for such elderly general practitioners. There should not be too much discretion as to how those schemes are applied. There must be more sensitivity from the Medical Practices Committee to assess the position in a particular area. Where it finds that the number of doctors is based entirely on minimal lists, fresh general practitioners should be introduced.
There will have to be some financial enouragement for young doctors and there must be good premises. We must work towards a group practice of doctors, combined with the build-up of team work with not only doctors but other health care professions. As in other parts of the country that means the provision of good health centres. To achieve that, one would have to co-operate with local authorities. It must be made much more difficult for general practitioners to settle for short lists.
Sometimes the point is made that such problems will persist because it is not possible to encourage general practitioners to live in the somewhat dreary and deprived inner city areas to do their work. That is not a real problem for general practitioners because there is always a reasonable residential area within 15 minutes' night-time motoring which makes attending emergency cases possible. That might require a moderate level of assistance with mortgage interest rates because such residential areas might be expensive.
The problem might be more serious for people such as district nurses, health visitors and, particularly, midwives, who have a large emergency element in their practice and who therefore have to live near their patients. The salaries of health visitors and district nurses are not as high as those of doctors. They do not have the same facility to live some distance from places of work and to commute. Therefore, the Government should face those serious recruitment problems.
The Acheson report is excellent. It gives evidence of very hard work on the part of those who produced it. It is clear that careful thought has been given to the problems that I have alluded to generally. It shows a willingness to propound shrewd solutions to many of the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South and I have mentioned. I wish that such a tool had been waiting for me to use for the problems of general practitioners in inner city areas when I moved to the Department in 1976. The report is a magnificent tool for solving the problems.
The Government have had the report for 15 months. The working party reported in May 1981. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South said, no decision has yet been reached on the report. Indeed, the Government have not even decided to reject it. In the report, there is ominous mention of the need for extra public expenditure. On the other hand, the Government have not decided to accept it in part or in whole. There has been a complete silence about it. People in London are becoming concerned. Indeed, their representatives, such as ourselves, are becoming concerned. The GLC, health authorities and the medical profession are all becoming concerned.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government have been doing about the report since receiving it 15 months ago. Why has there been such indecisiveness? After all, the Department was keyed up to accept such a report at least as late as 3 May 1979. I should have thought that the Government would have improved their ability to handle such a report in the three years or more since that date. Admittedly, there has been a change of Minister this year. That must have imposed a modest delay, but that is not a proper excuse.
Between May 1981 and March 1982—the date that the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) ceased to be Minister for Health and moved on to other things—the Minister could have reached a decision. What has been going on? I hope that the Under-Secretary will enlighten us. Why has no decision been reached? I hope that he will say that the Minister has decided to accept the Acheson report and that the Government intend to proceed with it. Even if the Minister accepts the report tonight, it cannot be implemented overnight. It will probably take a tremendous amount of time to persuade the British Medical Association to accept, on behalf of its members, several of the report's proposals. They will affect not only general practitioners in the inner city area but general practitioners throughout the country. Therefore, the negotiations will be important.
Until the Government say that they accept the report in principle, the policies cannot be implemented. In the meantime, apart from odd shifts and devices and short-term expedients the situation in relation to general practice is deteriorating all the time. The problems are not becoming easier, and they tend to become worse. Will the Under-Secretary put at rest the fears of hon. Members, the


Health Service, the medical profession and local authorities by saying that the Government accept the Acheson report?

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I join the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) in congratulating his hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) on introducing this subject. The right hon. Member is right when he says that he wished that he had a report similar to Acheson available to him. He was kind enough when Minister of State, to visit my area, and we found all the elements contained in the report.
I have complained about the problems for many years. I began in 1965 by inviting the then Minister of Health—Kenneth Robinson—to visit my area. We trod the same path that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East trod so recently. The Minister saw the deterioration in the area and was asked what he would do about it. In 1969 the Secretary of State for Social Services—Dick Crossman—visited the area in question and we went over the same ground and heard the same stories. He went away. Then the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), the then Minister for Health, visited the area. We went to the same places, talked to the same people and saw the same things. Nothing happened. I am now waiting to introduce myself to the new Minister for Health and take him to my area. We shall see the things that Acheson has put together in one document.
I do not accept that these are new problems. I am delighted to see that everything has been put together in the report. Over the years we have raised these problems with everybody in the Department for Health and Social Services who must have been aware of them. I cannot accept that we had to wait for Acheson to draw all the facts together. My complaint is that while everybody has known about the problems little has been done.

Mr. Moyle: rose—

Mr. Brown: I know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say. I will be paying a tribute to him, but I wanted to draw attention to the special problems of the environment in inner London as Acheson does. Those factors are not accepted in other parts of the country. People look at London and regard it as the place where the streets are paved with gold. We cannot even make our provincial colleagues accept that there are distressed areas in inner London. We had a number of rows about "RAWP-ing" with the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). He would not understand that when he was talking about "RAWP-ing"—taking money from London and giving it to other areas—he was causing destitution in those inner London areas. That was one of the ways in which we suffered so badly.
My area is 90 per cent. municipalised. There are a large number of high-rise flats. An elderly person who goes into hospital in any other part of the country goes home to a nice little house with a garden in which he can recuperate. He can be taken out of hospital, allowed home, and be attended by nurses. That cannot be done in my area. People cannot climb four or five storeys to recuperate with ulcerated legs. They have to stay in hospital. People say

that health services in inner London are expensive, and that the acute beds have to be closed because they are not really needed.
I have never been able to get across to the various Ministers for Health that many of our hospitals are what are known as "GP hospitals". People have to remain in hospital because their living accommodation does not allow them to recuperate at home.
My constituency is covered by the statistics for the City and East London. Table 7 shows that 57 per cent. of GPs in the area are born outside the United Kingdom. Over the page the report shows that we have the largest average list size, even though we have the poorest GP service.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to surgery premises. The area has the worst possible premises. He will recall that I took him to see the ganger's hut under the bridge. A lady holding a baby was standing in the rain outside the hut which had barbed wire on top of it. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman; he took action. The doctors were moved into the health centre. The facts of rain and the sick lady standing outside with her baby conspired to highlight the situation. But the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors knew of the hut and did not take action.
To some extent the report soft pedals about the condition of premises. In my area GPs operate from premises that are merely shop fronts. The right hon. Gentleman saw me advise my constituents outside one surgery to wait in the betting shop next door, where there was a carpet, warmth and music, until it opened. Sick people were leaning on the wall outside waiting for the surgery to open. The report should have made the position clearer, although it may have been trying to be friendly to the GPs. The problem has been in exposing the truth.
People also have to be sick at the permitted hours which are posted on the wall. If people are sick outside those hours they must ring the famous number, 802 6622. It is called a deputising service, but it is a moonlighting service.
The tables in the report show that 98 per cent. of the doctors in the area are permitted to moonlight. They are in their surgeries only for the permitted hours and then they are away. Few live locally. The table on page 34 shows that only 5 per cent. live on the premises of their surgeries, 27 per cent. live elsewhere in the same borough, 30 per cent. in adjoining boroughs, 24 per cent. in the next-but-one borough and 30 per cent. further afield. The people in my constituency are not getting a GP service.
They turn not to the teaching but to the ordinary cottage hospitals. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that we had a row about closing a cottage hospital. There were two other closures, so that with two more, only St. Bartholomew's would be left. It was argued that, because there was a deficit each year on the district health authority of about £1 million, one could save £1 million by closing a hospital. Every year there was a deficit of £1 million, so we closed a hospital to save money. However, the money was not saved as St. Bartholomew's hospital was causing the drain on the area. For as long as we fund that hospital from the district we will always have that deficit. I always argued that the hospitals should not be closed because once one did that, one took away from the people of the area their one chance of having proper treatment.
I appeared once before a family practitioner committee. I do not know how many hon. Members have done so on behalf of a constituent. One has to do so to understand the extraordinary procedure. One cannot speak at such a


committee. One has to act as a dummy for one's client. Therefore, one hears what is going on and whispers in the client's ear. One speaks through one's client. In my committee the GP about whom the complaint was made was angry because he did not understand the procedure. He complained to the chairman that I was advising his patient. The chairman had to explain that that was the role that I had to play. I could not talk to the chairman directly. I had to advise the client. That is absurd and should be cleared up.
That problem comes about because so few people have been at a family practitioner committee and presented a case on behalf of a constituent who has complained about a GP. Therefore, I hope that that point will be considered.
Acheson comments that it is up to the FPCs to show a greater interest in the conditions of the GPs and their premises. That is not done. The committees have not inspected the premises, otherwise they would have found the gangers' hut under the bridge, with barbed wire.
As the Minister knows, I have raised the subject of community nursing many times. Every one of the strategic plans of the area health authority in my area is based on the assumption that we have adequate primary health care. Having made that assumption, other assumptions are made, such as that there are too many beds or that one does not need this or that service because the primary health care service is there. However, there is no evidence that we have ever had it.
Paragraph 6.4 of Acheson refers to health visitors. I intervened in a debate when we discussed nurses, midwives and health visitors recently. I drew attention to the fact that there were insufficient health visitors. Paragraph 6.4 refers to the average vacancy rates. The rates are high in my area. The report states:
Average vacancy rates for health visitors were higher in inner London than elsewhere".
That is a stark comment. Other assumptions are based on the assumption that an area has enough health visitors. In my small district of Shoreditch, we are five short. Yet that is where the old people in my constituency are concentrated and it is the area with the highest sickness rate. They are stuck in high-rise flats and there is a greater need for health visitors. We have had five vacancies for years, but the structure plans assume that everything is all right.
The Government must study the Acheson report and what they know about the situation. There is much talk about preventive work among the elderly, but no such work is done. I argue with those involved, because no one wants to admit the truth.
When we discussed the quality of GPs, we finally persuaded Bart's to set up a chair of general practice. I think that it was the first in the country and it works well. Many undergraduates study general practice in the district and we must try to emulate that work in other parts of inner London.
The Acheson report refers to the services run by the boroughs. That reference takes only two pages of the enormous report, but if the London boroughs do not carry out their social work—meals on wheels, joint financing and so—everything else comes to a halt. And in my costituency it has come to a halt.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, East will remember that I took him to visit a lady in my constituency

who was confined to a wheelchair. I fought desperately to get a ramp provided outside her flat. Unfortunately, she died before a ramp was provided. The local authority was unable to help. I do not criticise that authority, because if it does not have the money it cannot do the work. Governments are to blame. They know that local authorities do not have the resources; and the two pages of comments in the Acheson report presuppose that everything is all right.
I tell my local authority that there is no shame in an authority being unable to do the work. If it is starved of resources, it should say so and make sure that everyone knows. Governments believe that the authorities can do the work. The Hackney director of social services puts the best face on the situation that she can. She is a hard worker and does her best, but that is nowhere near good enough.
Everyone is prepared to accept the director's assurances that she can provide the home helps, but home help services are being cut. Those who had home helps for three days now have them for only two, those who had home helps for two days now have them for only one, and those who were visited one day a week now get no help at all. No new home helps are being taken on and it is a desperate situation, but because the best face is put on the difficulties, the information fails to get across and Governments go on as if everything was all right.
The Acheson report does a good job, because it brings together the information that some of us, including most Governments, have known for a long time. There is no justification in the Government having waited 15 months wihout calling a meeting with anyone to discuss the report and to decide whether it is true or false. They should have done that before coming to the House to discuss their proposed response to the report.
I hope that the Minister will say, not in broad terms, what he thinks of Acheson. We think that it is first class. What will he do? I have highlighted for him the fact that he must produce more money in Hackney, for example, if we are to get anywhere near solving our problems. The situation is desperate. I have been accused in the past of exaggerating, but when people come to my area they see that I am not exaggerating. The situation is chaotic. We must get the Government to do something about Acheson and make sure that they begin to implement it. I hope that Ministers will come to the inner London areas to see what is happening and then ensure that we receive the resources to do something about it.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: We should be very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) for raising the whole matter of the Acheson report. He is carrying out a task that the Government should have carried out long ago. They have failed, disastrously, to live up to the expectations that they expressed originally on 20 December 1979, when the chairman of the London Health Planning Consortium wrote to Professor Acheson after setting up the primary health care study group. He explained that everyone was very clear about the problems, but they were not likely to disappear for a long time.
The Consortium therefore hopes that the Group will give particular thought to measures which could achieve change within a short timescale—say, five years. The Minister of State for Health"—
then the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan)—


fully supports this view and will await with considerable interest your report.
The Consortium does not itself have any executive powers. Its role is to advise its parent bodies … Nonetheless, the commitment of Ministers and the Department to the work of the Consortium, and particularly this Study, will ensure that your report is given urgent and serious consideration.
One can hardly get away from the plain English in which those views were expressed. But, in case there should have been any doubt, the introduction to the report made clear that the study group realised that the difficulties needed to be dealt with urgently. It said:
There has been a continuing reduction in the number of acute hospital beds and many accident and emergency … departments in the inner city have closed in recent years. Between 1976 and 1978, 22 casualty departments closed, 5 of which were in inner London … Between 1977 and 1979 the number of acute hospital beds in inner London fell by almost 1,000 … At the same time, the effects of the recession are leading to contraction of the social services financed by local authorities … the publication of the London Advisory Group's report on acute hospital services … has reinforced the need for urgent action. The Group recommended that the number of acute beds in London should be reduced by 15%—4,000 beds—during the 1980s".
So the study group was well aware of the scale of the problem and the need for immediate action, but it was also well aware that the Government's view is that if possible there should be no extra expenditure. It therefore said:
where possible … the financial implications were kept to a minimum.
The report is a classic indictment of the failure of inner city health care. But the real failure has been that of the present Government, because although they have here a clear blueprint for action they have done absolutely nothing. They have not discussed the report in the House, they have not made the slightest attempt to act on any of its recommendations and they have not even begun to discuss some of those recommendations that could have been implemented without any extra resources. When I asked the Minister about some of the report's recommendations, it did not matter what the subject of the initial question was; the answers were a series of "Noes".
I asked the Secretary of State whether he would
issue guidance to district health authorities to establish primary health care planning teams?"—[Official Report, 30 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 326–27.]
The Minister for Health replied that it was a matter for the health authorities themselves. Will the Secretary of State issue guidance to health authorities to facilitate co-operation with local authorities in the provision for joint premises for social and health workers? No. Guidance to health authorities is contained in circular etcetera, etcetera. I asked whether there would be any decision about community nurses. I received an extremely dusty answer, although the report makes it clear that it is not simply the problem of GPs or community nursing and the associated services that make the position in inner London so disastrous.
The present Government asked for the report and they made it quite clear that they intended that there should be urgent action. When they received the report, not only did they do absolutely nothing, they were not even prepared to discuss the summary that Professor Acheson and his team had made. He had spelt out what we must do.
Hon. Members have talked about the problem in inner London boroughs. Acheson said that if we were to change any of the real problems we must find positive incentives to encourage health professionals to work in better conditions. He said that the inner London boroughs had far

more single-handed and far more old GPs than any other area of the country. He said that their premises were substantially inadequate and that few had simple facilities such as lavatories or areas where patients could wait in decent conditions. He said that simple and basic facilities were absent from far too many general practice areas.
Therefore, Acheson said that several things should be done. He said that the incentives for the creation of group practices should be improved and that the small lists, with their concomitant problems, should be discontinued. He said that more rapid change should be stimulated through the retirement of elderly GPs. He said that we should improve the opportunities for GPs who are trained in modern forms of practice to work in the inner city. Of the community nursing services, he said that there was a vicious circle of excessive case loads and poor recruitment. He said that several matters should be considered urgently.
Acheson also suggested that we must have minimum standards for GPs' premises and that we must try to persuade the independent contractors to improve their premises while they remain independent of the NHS. He said that there must be effective inspection, that we must no longer leave it to the old boy system of people saying, "Yes it is all right. We will see whether we can arrange some type of loan that will assist you in the long term, but we will not insist that the improvement is done urgently."
We must involve health and local authorities in assisting with the provision of premises. That could be done with considerable effect. It is in providing good health centres with several GPs working together and supporting health professionals that we can have an immediate effect on general practice, both in inner cities and in the rest of Britain.
Acheson also said that we should improve staffing levels and the conditions of work for community nurses. Hon. Members have pointed out that there is a rapid turnover in community nurses in the inner city area. One does not have to be brilliant to work out why. They work in appalling conditions, they do not receive the back up that they should and they are frequently faced with insuperable problems in keeping up a level of patient care that they regard as the minimum.
Acheson says that if we are to do anything about this we should look at the practical means of support. Recently I took a delegation of nurses to talk to the Chancellor. In this instance, they happened to be district nurses concerned about the economics of running their own cars and thus supporting the Health Service. Acheson says that if we were prepared to consider buying cars for nurses in inner cities we might get over one of the practical problems—the fact that on their rates of pay many of them cannot afford to buy their first car and find it a great hardship when they are required to do so.
Exactly what do the Government intend to do about the practical things? If nurses in the inner city are at risk and if that can be dealt with by providing them with two-way radios, why have not the Government told us that they intend to do that without delay? They have been prepared to allow the most extraordinary things to happen in relation to citizens' band radio. They should at least be prepared to find the very small capital outlay needed to give quite effective protection to nurses working in areas where they are at considerable risk.
Over and above that, Acheson spelt out in considerable detail where the services were falling down. He said that


there was little co-ordination, that GPs needed to have a continuing interest in their patients, that they needed access to information and to good services within the hospital and that they needed to be positively encouraged.
We know how high the cost is to the National Health Service if GPs do not function effectively. In inner city areas, if people cannot find a good GP or if they ring one of the shop premises that have been described and are told to ring another number for the deputising service, they do no such thing—they simply go to the accident and emergency department of the nearest large teaching hospital and use its services in quite the wrong way to obtain what is in effect a GP service. That is not only expensive of resources but exactly the opposite of good primary care and it places an increasing burden on the accident and emergency services of the large general hospitals.
We know what we should be doing. We know that we should be finding resources to encourage GPs to improve the quality of their workplaces and the patient care that they provide. We know that we should be encouraging elderly GPs to retire and finding ways to help nurses in the inner city to remain in their jobs, to learn about the area and to be protected in their work.
We know nothing, however, of how the Government justify their extraordinarily casual, laissez-faire attitude to a report that they asked for and said was urgently needed. Yet they have refused to discuss the report, let alone act upon it. There is the occasional rumour, of course—that seems to be the way in which a great deal of the Government's health policy is made—to the effect that some action will be taken. For example, there was a suggestion that the Minister of State might consider inspecting a few general practice premises in the future. That is so embarrassingly superficial as to be disgraceful. It is no use setting up an inspection service if nothing is done to deal with the other major problems of primary care in inner London. It is no use saying that GPs will be encouraged to put their money into improving their practices if nothing is done about the fact that too many of them work in single-handed practices and too many of them are old and infirm themselves. Positive incentives must be given to elderly GPs to retire. There must be positive incentives for GPs to improve their practices and to go into group practices where, at long last, the patients will get the standard of health care that they need and which in the 1980s should be available to them as of right. We should not have to say to the Government that they asked for the report, they have got it, and ask them what they are going to do about it. We should be discussing how we can most usefully utilise existing resources to provide a high level of primary health care.
I am sorry that the Minister of State is not here tonight. He bears considerable responsibility for the inaction on the Acheson report. It is an indictment of the Government that they have lamentably failed to do anything about the real problems set out in the report or the obvious means of redeeming the situation that Acheson regards as urgent.
I hope that the Minister will tell his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security that it will be regarded as a disgrace by the House of Commons and by the population of inner London if too many general practices are allowed to continue in their existing squalor. There are too many inadequate premises

and too many nurses working at personal risk and in great difficulty. Ministers must do something about it now, having failed disastrously to do so in the past.
Having told his colleagues that, I hope that the Minister will return at the beginning of the next Session with the news that the Department is acting on the report because it regards it as an extremely intelligent and helpful plan which must be put into operation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I add to what the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) said by expressing the Minister for Health's apologies for his not being present. He has had some trouble with his voice and, although my voice might be less satisfactory to have at the Dispatch Box, it can, I hope, be more clearly heard than would my hon. and learned Friend had he been here.
I genuinely join in the congratulations expressed by Opposition hon. Members to the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) on having raised this important subject, and to all hon. Members on the constructive, albeit at times critical, way in which they have spoken on it.
It would be possible for me to spend several minutes in saying how relatively satisfactory in some respects the national developments in primary health care have been in the past few years. We are debating the situation in inner London and in other inner city areas—although tonight's debate has concentrated on inner London—against a background of encouraging development, in broad national terms, in primary health care. I want that, at least, to be recognised. I shall not labour the point because I do not want to sound complacent.
I recognise that against that reasonable national background there is cause for concern about the position in inner London and in some other inner city areas where the pattern has conspicuously failed to follow the general pattern of improvement over the past 20 years or so. It was partly in response to that, as hon. Members are aware, that the Acheson study group was established at the end of 1979 with a remit to identify the problems of organising and delivering primary health care in inner London and to recommend what actions might be taken to overcome them.
The study group identified four main problems. The first is the disproportionate number of elderly GPs—the hon. Lady and almost every hon. Member stressed this point—often with small lists of patients, working alone under demanding conditions. The Harding report, to which there has been less reference, which was published at the same time as Acheson, argued that it was vital for primary health care services to be provided on a comprehensive and co-ordinated basis and urged that team working should be promoted wherever possible.
There was an overlap between the two reports. In endorsing that approach the Acheson report highlighted the fact that the pattern of general practice in inner London was an obstacle to effective team working. That relates to much of what the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) said.
Secondly, some practice premises fall badly short of the standards that one might expect from a doctor's surgery in the 1980s. Thirdly—and this has been emphasised by hon. Members—health authorities have experienced difficuties in recruiting and training sufficient community nurses to


meet inner London's needs. Fourthly, there was evidence that some patients had difficulty in communicating with their doctors or in gaining access to primary health care services. Again, hon. Members have rightly focused on that problem.
The report recognises that despite the problems there is a great deal of energy, commitment and caring among primary health care professionals. In inner London as elsewhere they are providing health services and doing the best that they can for their patients. I do not want hon. Members to believe that the picture is wholly gloomy and black, but I recognise the serious problems described tonight.
Most of the criticism has been directed at the Government not making a detailed response to the Acheson report.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Government have made no response.

Mr. Newton: I shall come to that in a minute.
The report, published in May 1981, contains 115 recommendations covering a wide range of interests, by no means all of which are directed at central Government. The Harding report contains a further 50 recommendations, many of which overlap the Acheson report. Many of the recommendations in both reports are aimed at the authorities directly responsible for the provision of services—the health authorities, the local authorities, family practitioner committees and education bodies. The then Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), asked all the authorities to consider the reports as a basis for action. He sought comments from them and others. A large number of comments have been received, and the Government are considering them carefully and hope to make concrete proposals in the relatively near future.
The House should recognise that it is not easy to respond quickly to 165 recommendations, many directed at bodies other than central Government, many requiring substantial consultation with professional interests. I resist the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) that the Government have not even decided to reject the report, as if we have given no sign of our general approach. It is clear that the Government have accepted the broad thrust of the Acheson report and the need to put as many of its proposals as practical into operation, bearing in mind the need for consultation.

Mrs. Dunwoody: What does the Minister base that thought on? What evidence is there that the Government accept the report?

Mr. Newton: In May 1981 the Government wrote to all the authorities concerned recommending the report to them as a basis for action. We have had a series of informal discussions with the General Medical Services Committee, concentrating on many of the recommendations from the Acheson report. We have moved on to formal discussions with it on particular proposals. There have been discussions with regional nursing officers, concentrating on staffing levels for community nurses and arrangements for funding their training. That is something to which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State attaches especial importance and particular urgency. Earlier this year we wrote to the local authority associations on recommendations within the report falling to them and we are currently awaiting their response.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: If a judgment is to be made in the not too distant future, the joker in the pack is that the Secretary of State for the Environment has already said that Hackney will lose a substantial sum next year. That means that an impoverished service will be worse off. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to get over that?

Mr. Newton: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has made it clear on a number of occasions recently that it is not possible at present to draw specific deductions about the precise consequences for personal social services of expenditure decisions which have not yet been taken in relation to the PESC exercise, which will continue in the latter part of the year. To draw specific conclusions of the sort that have been drawn in some quarters in the past few weeks is to go further than the facts allow or justify.
When Labour Members ask "What have the Government been doing?", the answer is that which I have presented to the House. An extensive range of consultation, both formal and informal, has been taking place with a view to putting the Government in a position that will enable an announcement to be made in the reasonably near future that will not be virtually meaningless—for example, "We accept the report". If the Harding report is included, there are over 150 detailed recommendations. As they are not all related to central Government, a statement of general acceptance would not mean very much. We wish to announce a specific and detailed package of proposals that is based on consultation.

Mr. Moyle: I want to try to achieve the maximum amount of agreement on this issue. Is it fair to say that the Minister is telling us that the Government have accepted the Acheson report in principle? Is he making an official announcement to that effect, and that subject to consultation the Government intend to proceed towards applying the report? That is what I am beginning to understand from what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is that a fair summary?

Mr. Newton: I shall not take up and endorse the words that the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to put into my mouth. However, it is in my judgment clear from what I have said, and from what has happened over the past 15 months, that the Government accept the broad thrust of the Acheson report and the need to examine in detail its recommendations with a view to bringing about practical improvements that are directed at the problems that the hon. Lady and right hon. and hon. Members have identified.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: And provide the money as well?

Mr. Newton: I am not able to go further than that tonight, but I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that the Government have not rejected the report. We are endeavouring to work towards the announcement within the reasonably near future of measures directed to the problems and, as far as possible, to the solutions that are recommended in the Acheson report. It will not be possible for the Government to accept and act upon every one of the 150 or more recommendations, if we include the Harding report.
I hope that it will be possible for my hon. and learned Friend to be in a position before much longer, on the basis


of the continuing consultations with professional interests—the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East recognises the need to talk at length with the BMA and other interests—to make positive and specific proposals that are based upon the Government's consideration of the Acheson report. I recognise that that is not as much as Labour Members would like me to say, but I hope that it is a clear indication of the Government's wish to make a positive response as soon as possible to what has been said tonight and to the Acheson report.

Orders of the Day — Department of Energy (Privatisation Policy)

Mr. Ron Leighton: From the end of the Second World War until May 1979, we had in Britain a broad consensus on the need for a mixed economy, but in May 1979 we saw the advent of a Government who are displaying the grossest hostility, prejudice and malice to the public sector.
The nationalised industries fall into two main groups. There are industries where private ownership and capitalism failed, such as the railways and the coal mines which were losing money but which it was felt necessary to keep in the national interest. After the Second World War they were brought into public ownership. That applied more recently to firms such as Rolls-Royce and ICL. The building of the "Atlantic Conveyor" would not have been possible in Britain, because there would have been no shipbuilding industry had it not been taken into public ownership.
The second type of industry is natural monopolies. In the days of trams, it would have been absurd for several tram companies to lay tram lines down the same road or to have half a dozen gas or electricity companies digging up the pavements to lay their lines. It was thought that the monopoly positions should not be abused but that they should be opened up to democratic control.
But this Government, rather like a group of vandals, are setting out systematically to strip the assets of the public sector to obtain quick, one-off gains. They are skimming the cream off the public sector to enable them to have some room in the Budget for tax cuts for the rich. They have already sold assets worth £1,800 million in British Aerospace, the National Freight Company, Cable and Wireless, ICL, Ferranti, Fairey Aviation and several other companies. The Government's philosophy is that those companies which are losing money but which are essential will be kept in the public sector, but that profitable industries will be sold to their friends in the City.
We know that most businesses have profitable and non-profitable parts and that the profitable parts help to balance the books. In the newspaper industry, for example, The Guardian loses money but the Manchester Evening News makes money, so one can help the other. British Rail does not make a profit, but there is no railway system in the world that does. The subsidy to the Deutsche Bundesbahn is much larger than that to British Rail. But even British Rail has profitable parts, which are being sold, such as the hotels, the Hoverspeed service and now the Sealink ferries.
No one in the House would say that public services are not efficient or that they cannot be well run. Recently in the House we paid tribute to the professionalism, efficiency, good organisation and morale of publicly owned and financed services. I refer to the Royal Marines, the Royal Navy, the Guards battalions and the paratroop battalions in the Falklands campaign. That operation was left, not to private enterprise, but to public services not run by the profit motive. I hope that no one will say that it is not possible for public services to be efficient.
What we are seeing, and the issue to which I wish to draw particular attention, is the worst vandalism of all, the selling off of 51 per cent. of the British National Oil


Corporation. I regard this as a scandalous rip-off of the British taxpayer. North Sea oil is the best bit of economic good news that this country has had, perhaps the only bit, since the war. At one time we debated what we would do with the benefits from North Sea oil, how we would use it and where the money would be invested. We do not have those debates now because the money is being wasted on financing the dole queues. Oil is a great national asset.
The land is also a great national asset. I believe that at one time the Liberals had a song which said that God gave the land to the people. Perhaps he did, but some rather nefarious people have got their hands on it in the interim. However, British Oil was under national control. If 51 per cent. of Britoil is sold, this will undermine public control of this important resource, and it will be handed over to private speculators. Assets of immense, long-term economic and financial value which otherwise would have accrued to the nation will go, and there will be yet another opportunity for speculators to make gains.
I hope that nobody will sneer and laugh at that suggestion. We should remember what happened with Amersham International, which was the last episode of this kind of thing. Rothschild handled the operation of selling the shares. They were sold again the following day at about 32 per cent. more than the original price. That was a grotesque swindle of the taxpayer by speculators. One has to use the word "speculators", because why would these people buy these shares unless they thought that they would make a quick profit? Here we are talking about Britoil, which is not a small operation like Amersham International. We are talking about billions of pounds and it would be a major scandal and a disgrace if the same thing happened.
Why are the Government so intent on selling off this great national asset? No one would say that BNOC is inefficient. Neither the Government nor the Minister would claim that. The Secretary of State for Energy, when introducing the Government's plans, made no such criticism. He said:
BNOC is one of the newest of the public corporations, and its spirit of enterprise has not yet been stifled by the bureaucratic embrace".—[Official Report, 19 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 177.]
In other words, he meant no criticism of its efficiency.
Already, BNOC is the third largest producer in the North Sea, after Shell and BP. Its adventurous and enterprising programme will mean that its shares are bound to rise. It is very profitable. In 1981, its pre-tax profits were £439 million, and they are bound to rise. It is the sale of BNOC's own production, not its sale of other operators' oil, that makes the profit. That is the part that is to be sold off, and that is the scandalous and disgraceful part of this operation.
The Government will sell off this asset at less than its real value. We now have a world-wide glut of oil and prices are coming down. In March, BNOC cut its price by $4 a barrel. This asset should be kept in national ownership. If the price drops too far, the oil should be kept below the sea for future generations. If we have the sale now, there will be rich pickings for speculators. I hope that Conservative Members will not sneer about that, because it has often happened in the past. In the case of British Aerospace, the shares were sold for 150p a share, and as soon as they reached the Stock Exchange they traded at 171p a share. The speculative gain there was 14 per cent. The Government sold 50 per cent. of Cable and Wireless. The shares were sold at 168p, and when they reached the

Stock Exchange they traded at 203p. The speculative gain there was 21 per cent. In the recent scandal of Amersham, the gain was 32 per cent. In that case, there was a loss to the public purse of £23 million. Now the same thing will happen again, but on a gigantic scale.
I know of no other country which takes this attitude to its oil resources. Norway takes exactly the opposite view. Norwegian Statoil has a minimum stake of 51 per cent in all concessions, rising to 85 per cent. Petrocan in Canada, Petrobras in Brazil, Hispanoil in Spain, Deminex in West Germany, all take a similar view. Only Tory Britain wants to sell off a national resource of this nature.
The efficiencey of BNOC is not in question. It is a major source of income for the future. However, that is to be completely disregarded by this dogmatic and doctrinaire Government, with their mania for handing over profitable public assets for private speculation and exploitation. There will be huge benefits from the North Sea, but they will go to a privileged few, and not to the nation.
British Gas has to sell its oil interests in the North Sea and Wytch Farm in Dorset. It also has to lose its right of first purchase on gas discovered in the North Sea, and that is likely to put up the price of gas. The Government even wanted it to sell off all the gas showrooms. I hope that trade union pressure, mainly from the General and Municipal Workers Union—one of whose members, the Opposition Chief Whip, I see listening to this debate—has brought sanity into the argument, and that we shall hear no more of that madcap scheme.
We know, too, that British Airways, British Transport Docks, parts of British Steel, and British Leyland, if they are made profitable by State enterprise and State money, will all be sold off. We know that British Telecom, the profitable side of what we once called the Post Office, is also too tempting and juicy a target to miss. It is considered to be an ideal candidate for that ugly word and ugly concept "privatisation". One effect of that will be a switch from British to foreign suppliers, meaning more imports and a greater loss of jobs in this country.
The British Labour movement believes in a substantial public sector because the majority of our people would have no chance of decent housing, education, pensions or health care if they were left to private profit. Only the privileged few would have a decent service. Therefore, they must be provided by the public sector and by the community mobilising its intelligence, which is a little more than the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) is doing tonight. I am surprised that he is letting himself down.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: The Conservative Party, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the party of State education.

Mr. Leighton: I am pleased to hear that. However, if such matters were left to private profit instead of the community, there would be no chance of the ordinary person in Britain getting any decent services. That is why we want an efficient and substantial public sector.
The Government are trying to turn back the clock. They plan to hand back to their friends and supporters in the City many industries that have long been in the public sector. Yet the aim of private capital, I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees, is not the public good or the public benefit. The aim of private capital is the greatest possible private profit, to which the public good would be ruthlessly sacrificed.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the Government that we are bitterly opposed, to this selling off of our North Sea assets. They will be taken back into public ownership on terms under which the speculators will get their fingers burnt. We intend to return the inheritance of North Sea oil to its rightful owners—the British nation and its people.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: After some bitter experiences in Committee on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill I can say that the Government's proposals are more extensive and infamous than the Amersham International scandal. The Minister will recall that at the Easter debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill he had the distressing experience of being at the receiving end of Labour Members' comments with regard to that.

Mr. Rhodes James: The Government provide time themselves.

Mr. Cunliffe: The Minister was obviously subject to some criticism and attack on that matter.
The House will recall that I recently presented a Bill about the disposal of public assets. Its purpose was to ensure that before any shares in a publicly owned industry are disposed of by the Government they shall lay before Parliament all the commercial calculations on which the judgments regarding price, method of disposal and timing of sales are based, and for connected purposes.
No one can deny that the Government were subject to acute embarrassment. They will have the stigma of Amersham International for ever on their record—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) is having an attack of malaria. He has been mumbling away since the debate commenced. If he wishes to intervene, or if he needs attention, we shall try to help him.
I return to the point that the object of my Bill was to prevent any recurrence of the infamous Amersham International share bonanza. That is what it proved to be. I shall dot the I's and cross the t's of what has been said about city sharks and speculators. Overnight they made a killing of about £27 million. I remember a Tory Member saying that he had purchased some shares for two of his children, because it would not have been right to purchase them for himself. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether his children still had the shares, but no answer was forthcoming.
The shares turned over rapidly, because they were a good commercial proposition. That hon. Gentleman and his family took part in that kill. In fairness, it should be said that it was the merchant bankers that undervalued the shares. That was fortunate for some, but unfortunate for taxpayers. Last Wednesday, there was a splendid article in The Times, entitled
Why selling off is a sell-out for the poor.
In the atomic energy debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) predicted, and to some extent proclaimed, that this sort of thing would happen over the radiochemical factories. We were proved to be right. We warned the Government of what would happen, because we knew their crude methods. The Bank of England should have made the evaluation. That would have been more sensible and in the interest of parliamentary accountability. Again, the Oil and Gas

(Enterprise) Bill gives the Minister discretion to dispose of shares. He does not need to come to the House and that is to abuse ministerial responsibility. There should be more accountability to the House on such matters.
The shares were offered at a very modest price. Tory Ministers made it plain that it would help to encourage the spread of small shareholdings. In all, 65,000 successful applications were made. Only four months later, the number of shareholders in the company had fallen to 8,601 and nearly two-thirds of the company is now held in lots of more than £250,000. The small boys and ordinary people cannot now use their redundancy pay—the only thing that they have got out of the Government—to make a small investment for their futures. The dear old lady who wanted to have a gamble instead of buying Granny Bonds has not got any shares. It is right to have a gamble in that way. People are free to choose.
On average, lots of £250,000 are held and that leaves less than 9 per cent. of the shares in Amersham International in holdings smaller than £12,000. It is pretty obvious that the policy of privatisation is another abysmal failure. The classic example is that there is to be more of this sort of thing on an even greater scale. BNOC and British Telecom will each be another sale of the century. There will still be an ideological and philosophical conflict between the Opposition and the Government.
The Minister and I have had a great deal to do with each other over energy and coal-mining. He has taken a realistic view of our energy problems. Energy is not a product that can be wasted. It must be taken seriously. Our North Sea gas reserves at the current rate of usage are not expected to last much beyond the year 2000. If more reserves are discovered, strict depletion controls will be essential. The British Gas Corporation can ensure that by controlling production levels. Three-quarters of our current energy production is owned by multinational companies. I give the Under-Secretary the facts. If he does not understand them, he must ask the Minister to explain them to him later.
The Government must realise that if they do not control multinational companies the multinationals will control them. There has been an exodus of capital abroad and towns have closed down overnight when multinationals have moved to a more profitable market. The Government do not understand that there must be a licensing system to control multinational companies. Now that they are moving into the energy industry there must be a greater degree of vigilance and control to ensure that they stay in the country until the Government have the sense to get a return on or for the grants that have been made to the multinational companies.
The Opposition have always argued, and will continue to argue, that a fully integrated, publicly owned, gas industry is in the interests of consumers and workers. We are opposed to the removal of the corporation's rights to retail gas appliances and the proposed sale of showrooms to private enterprise.
If the Government succeed in carrying out their proposals, the Opposition make it plain that those rights will be restored by the next Labour Government. We have said that about oil and we shall say it about any other assets that are hived off to private enterprise. Private enterprise is motivated by self-preservation and quick and greater profits. It is the great gulf that divides the Opposition from the Government.
we hear corny remarks from Ministers to the effect that their aim is a private, property-owning democracy. When a Labour Government are returned to office they will maximise on orders for goods and services in the North Sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) rightly made great play of the fact that North Sea oil is the greatest jewel in the country's crown. It will continue to be if we conserve it and use it wisely. The Minister must acknowledge that we are still foolishly supplying oil which we shall need in 20 years' time to power stations, although we have 300 years of coal reserves in our coal fields.—[Interruption.]—I am not arguing about the price.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): I said that oil was not being used at base power station load. I was not talking of the price.

Mr. Cunliffe: It is sensible and rational to have a national energy planning policy, and most advanced industrialised nations, such as Japan, are considering one. The Governments of those countries give great energy subsidies. They realise that energy conservation is imperative.
With known technology and at current rates of depletion, the United Kingdom is likely to become a net importer of oil some lime in the next 10 years. The Government should apply strict depletion controls to prolong the life of reserves well into the next century. We should aim to restrict the use of oil by the premium use of conversion from oil to coal and bulk steam-raising in industry. We need more effective grants. As a result of persuasion from the Opposition, the Government have made a minor contribution. Nurseries are being encouraged to change to the fuels that I mentioned. I am sure that a Labour Government will put more money into research and development of satisfactory substitutes, particularly for use in transport, which consumes high quality oil.
It is essential to have a strong and healthy British national oil corporation that can play a major role in developing to the full our North Sea oil resources in the interests of the nation. The Labour Government established BNOC and gave it the power to operate as a fully fledged and prosperous State-owned company. But this Government have removed many of its powers. I shall never be convinced that the free market mechanism, which appears to be the Government's only regulator, will supply the fuel needs of the British and European economies. The Government should review the situation. We need a nationally co-ordinated energy policy, instead of the recent betrayal of the British taxpayer.

Mr. John Prescott: Having just been drafted in from the picket with my nurses beside the Pankhurst statue, I shall attempt to make one or two observations on the public sector nationalised industries and energy privatisation.
The Government wish to pursue privatisation in all sectors. We strongly disagree with that, principle. The problems with the nationalised industries and the principle of them go back further than the past two or three years. We have not faced the problems of how to deal with the great public sector. We disagree with the Government fundamentally because they seek to solve those problems

by selling off the most profitable assets of public sector industries, when the problems facing them require us to look more directly at the role that we ask them to play in our economy.
The Government capitalise on the difficulties of the public sector industries by saying that because they are starved of capital, they must bring in private capital or sell assets to reduce their borrowing requirements. That is the Government's approach to the nationalised industries. They made it clear in their manifesto that they intended to roll back the frontiers of the public industries. What they meant was selling the profitable sectors. The only people who are prepared to buy anything or introduce private capital are those who are prepared to make a profit. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) referred to areas where profitable advances are being made. It was suggested that hon. Members had been able to secure some advantage through those deals. I can think of one or two examples. I think that the individual about whom my hon. Friend was talking obtained a capital advantage on local authority housing loans at one stage of his life.
Public sector industries inevitably have been starved of adequate capital. For a considerable period they have been denied sufficient capital. The most evident example, although the Government argue that it is the same with every industry, is British Rail. It has suffered for a long time from the denial of sufficient capital. It is incumbent upon us to ask ourselves what is the role of public sector industries and how we are to deal with them in meeting their tremendous demands on capital, while recognising their powerful role in our economy.
If one looks at the Government's record in the past three years, one sees that their approach has been to concentrate their attention on the privatisation of the profitable parts. That is for obvious reasons. It is intended for those interested in a quick kill—selling the assets, organising their sale or acquiring interest in them. There is the example of BP's shares. Governments are attracted to the acquisition of capital by selling assets. We have to recognise that it becomes an attraction to the Treasury and other Departments to acquire funds in that way.
The Government's arguments appear to be, first, to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement They have not reduced the proportion so far—it has increased since they came to power. Presumably that is because of what the Government are paying out in unemployment pay. Therefore, they have not achieved that target.
Secondly, the Government argue about increased efficiency in the nationalised industries and say that, by bringing in private capital, efficiency will be increased. That has yet to be proved. I shall give an example, again of British Rail. When the Government set up the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into British Rail that was an example of them setting the MMC loose on the public sector. They prefer doing that to the public than the private sector. The MMC conducted an inquiry into the southern region of British Rail. We are conscious of the arguments on labour practices, especially about flexible rostering. We heard of that disastrous affair, involving the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. It was made clear by the MMC that, even if one achieves reasonable labour productivity, one cannot achieve proper efficiency without an adequate investment programme. The only reason why we spend so much time talking about labour practices, without looking at


investment, is that we shut our eyes to the contribution of capital and investment to productivity and efficiency. The MMC report concluded that British Rail was starved of investment.
If the Government had been prepared to increase investment in concerns such as British Rail they might have been able to achieve greater efficiency than could be gained by applying pressure on flexible rostering. Those are arguments on the transport industry, but they are relevant to other sectors, though less so in energy and mining, where there has been greater productivity. However, in defence of British Rail, it must be said that reports comparing railways in Europe show that British Rail has a pretty good productivity record, which has not been given sufficient recognition.
One criticism of the Government's approach to the public sector is that it is not entirely consistent. The limits placed on the financing of public industries have been conditioned by the share held by the Treasury in those industries. It is usually said that if the Government have more than a 50 per cent. share of an industry it comes under the control of the Treasury.
The only public sector industry to which that rule did not apply was British Petroleum, but that was because of a special agreement, arranged by a senior civil servant, not a politician, in the early 1920s, that the Government would not interfere with BP, even though the State at one stage held more than 50 per cent. of the shares.
In addition, in airways and aerospace the argument was advanced that the protection of the public interest was involved and the rules of the Treasury, which have been such a blight on our nationalised industries, do not apply. The Government have not been consistent in their approach to nationalised industries.
Another example of the inconsistent approach is the mortgage and leasing arrangements of various nationalised industries. The Government told British Rail that it had to sell its hotels. The argument was that if BR could not raise enough money it should sell its assets. It could be argued that those assets could have been much more profitable if sufficient investment had been provided and the long-term advantage of the industry had been taken into account.
British Rail's hotels, some of the finest in the country, are starved of capital. An easy way to raise capital would be to take out mortgages on the buildings. That is the usual way which the hotel industry finances its capital requirements, but the Treasury said that it would not allow mortgages to be taken out on British Rail hotels.
However, the whole financing of Sealink, the nationalised shipping company, is done through mortgage and leasing arrangements. I concede that that did not start two years ago, but if the Government are interested in exploiting the advantage of the assets they should not sell them at knock-down prices when the market is depressed. Less money will be obtained, because the hotels are undercapitalised and profit returns have been bad in the past few years, reflecting the poor investment. The advantages of those assets have gone to waste because of lack of capital. If the Government had wanted to exploit the assets, all that they had to do was to allow the hotels to borrow on mortgages. Again we come up against the old problem of the public sector borrowing requirement and Treasury control, with the public sector being crucial to monetary controls and monetary policy.
It is clear that the Government were concerned not to develop the assets to their full potential but to sell them off to advantage other people. The financial advisers to the hotel business saw that it was to the hotels' disadvantage to sell off at that stage and at that price, but they were overruled by a British Railways Board that the Government were forcing to sell off its assets because it did not have sufficient capital.
I come from the shipping industry. The result of starving British Rail's Sealink of adequate capital resources is that the ships in Sealink's fleet—in which there are strikes going on around the country—have been allowed to grow old. In another two years 75 per cent. of the Sealink fleet will be over 16 years old. Only 25 per cent. of the fleet of its competitor, Townsend, will be 16 years old. When people travel on the State-owned ships they see that they reflect an investment pattern of 10 or 20 years ago, and they clearly prefer a shipping system in which there has been better investment and which has modern equipment.
The argument is not simply that the private sector does it better. All the innovations in shipping, the new types of ships, were introduced by British Rail and the other nationalised industries. The first interest in hovercraft came from nationalised industries. In both innovation and efficiency, when it had the capital, Sealink was on a par with, if not better than, its competitors. That is on the record.
We have allowed Sealink to stagnate, denying it the capital. Such actions have contributed to the problems faced by many public sector industries, with a Government who wish to be rid of them. The Government are ideologically pleased to sell them off and roll back the public sector. If they sell off the profitable parts of the public sector, is the role of the State simply to be the ambulance, to take up those parts that make a loss, those parts that cannot make a profit, and make the taxpayer pay for all those areas that are to become a social service? Is there not a role for cross-subsidisation?
We see what the Government's policy means in rural areas, where there are no buses because they have decided to license private people to go into the profitable areas—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, especially as I know that he has been drafted to reply to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, but the subject is the policy of the Department of Energy towards the privatisation of nationalised industries. I am not certain that the Minister will be able to reply to a number of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Prescott: I should have stayed on a picket line. I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am sure that the Minister recognises the principle. One of the fortunate aspects of the energy side of the subject is the tremendous amount of resources available. If I am arguing that there is a lack of finance in other areas of the public sector, it could be argued that at least the very profitable areas are much more attractive for raising capital, if the Government are prepared to release them from Treasury control. We are not prepared to do that, or in this sense limit them on the external financing limits. There are arguments about British Telecom and energy. In this one area of energy it is simply an ideological commitment, because here there are certainly considerable


assets, although the mines in some areas may not be as profitable as in others. I do not know enough about the mines to enter that debate, but surely the Government will not be selling off the unprofitable parts of the mines.
Simply selling off the profitable sectors, which is more evident on the energy side, where there is not as much cross-subsidisation as necessary, requires the Government in their broader approach to the nationalised industries to ask themselves about the cross-subsidisation of a number of public sector industries. The Government are arguing about prices as between gas and electricity and between gas and oil, and they impose what is really an energy tax on the gas industry. That is certainly how it is regarded by those concerned. If that is indeed the case, it could be argued that it does not matter whether the Government raise the money through extra tax on the gas industry or use the money to finance less profitable industries that perform a public service. These are important questions about our great nationalised industries and we must address ourselves to them.
I have not commented on the more unsavoury aspects relating to private gain and the various other points made by some of my hon. Friends, but it is as clear in energy as it is elsewhere that the Government's approach to public sector industries leaves much to be desired. The industry's problems did not begin two years ago, but they have been made vastly more difficult by the Government's approach, which is motivated by what the Minister would no doubt say is a purely ideological desire to reduce the frontiers of the public sector but which, as the evidence shows, will in fact bring great profit and advantage to those fortunate enough to be able to acquire the assets.
The Minister should know that, despite all the controversy that we have had, the Labour Party's position is clear. Those people will not gain by their actions. We shall use the power of Government to roll back the areas of advantage and incentive to private greed given by the Government. I hope that anyone who has bought or is thinking of buying into this or any other nationalised industry in this way will watch carefully this year's Labour Party conference. A formula will be laid down on this and the party will be committed. If there was previously any doubt about the Labour Party's attitude to reacquiring these State industries, it should be borne in mind that the Labour Party now takes a very much firmer attitude. We do not believe that taxpayers' assets should be exploited in this way and we shall take all measures available in Parliament to correct it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): First, I thank the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) for enabling us to discuss a matter of great importance not only to those with energy interests, as the debate has made clear.
I should have loved to trespass on the time of the House by responding to the many interesting comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Unlike much of the earlier part of the debate, the hon. Gentleman's speech sought to face some of the really tough questions underlying what for all of us are the difficult industrial social and economic problems of the nationalised sector in all its guises. At times, I share the hon. Gentleman's difficulty in understanding the Jesuitical and esoteric nature of what is or is not a public sector

enterpise in Treasury terms. I am sure that he will be conscious of the difficulties in which some of us find ourselves in that respect.
I should have loved, too, to go into detail on the transport aspect, but I should clearly be straying beyond the remit of the debate. Nevertheless, I take the point that these matters go beyond any one sector, although the debate itself concerns the energy industries.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that, as the power of Government must come from the ballot box, I trust that those whom he sought to attract to the Labour Party conference will give it their full attention. Indeed, I hope that the whole nation will do so. The balloting consequences can only be a source of gain to the Conservative Party.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) also contributed to the debate. I appreciate, of course, that some hon. Members are unable to participate in our debates in public, but it was a privilege, as always on these occasions, to have the presence of the Opposition Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks), who at all hours of the night provides a constant series of delightful sedentary interruptions, and I know that his activites would be a great deal more verbal if the opportunity to contribute were available to him.
Large parts of the earlier contributions started from the astonishing supposition that only the Opposition were entitled to the privilege of having something known as a philosophy, however archaic and ineffective in practice and history, and that there was no rationale of any kind behind the Government's policies in this or other areas.
I note that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East remembered both the words of the Conservative Party manifesto and the fact that there is a philosophy underlying it. It is worth debating philosophy. I hope that those who respect democratic debate do not assume that there is a murky and unfortunate language attached to the motives and attitudes of some of those who, in Government, argue aggressively the philosophy that underlies their decisions.
As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East rightly said, the Government's actions are backed by a philosophic commitment to free enterprise with the sincere belief that competition in the market place will better allocate and use the resources of a nation than decisions taken through a centralised State monopoly. Knowing our philosophy and our commitment to it, it would be surprising if we had not embarked on a programme of denationalisation.
Three essential questions lie behind our actions. First, does a nationalised rather than a private sector corporation best serve the nation? Secondly, does a nationalised or a private sector corporation better serve the consumer? Thirdly, does such a corporation better serve the employees of that industry? I shall deal with each of those questions before dealing with the specific points that have been raised.
The answer to the first question is clear to all who do not allow hope to triumph over the experience of the past 40 or more years. The figures—we have had sterile figures from both sides of the argument—are legion, so I shall touch on just two to refresh memories. In my ministerial responsibilities I have tried to help and succour nationalised industry structures. Two figures should be tucked in the back of hon. Members' minds as a backcloth. Since 1945, the accumulated subsidies in capital write-offs of our nationalised industry sector are now more than


£8,000 million. Secondly, since 1972 the average rate of return of all the nationalised industries has never been significantly above zero. From 1970 to 1980, the post-subsidy returns have dropped from less than 0·75 per cent. to minus 1 per cent.
We all know that we are dealing with a massive amount of capital, whatever the debate about the needs for new capital. In 1980, £94 billion of capital was employed. I understand the definition that others may have of social good and value as opposed to rates of return on the capital that is employed. We are dealing with the return to the nation in terms of capital and efficiency.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East talked of industry's failure to serve the nation as being essentially the result of a lack of capital. I speak in generalities as I know that he has a special interest in a couple of industries. There is failure—this is the philosophical argument that should be debated—because monopolies by definition cannot allocate resources as efficiently as competition in the market place.
I know that Ronald Butt is not a popular commentator with all hon. Members, but recently he wrote what I thought was a rather interesting article in The Times. He wrote of monopoly, private or public:
Monopoly is a condition which cannot fail to be exploited by human greed, sloth, fear and self protection".
All who are genuinely concerned with how we better serve our country as opposed to other aspects of the debate understand the dilemmas that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East fairly referred to.
I am staggered by the suggestion that we have consumer satisfaction with our nationalised industries. In common with all hon. Members, I hold weekly surgeries. I have done so for eight or nine years. Most hon. Members have a healthy letter bag and have been politically conscious, whether from political door-knocking or from public surveys, of the attitude of the public to the nationalised industries. I take no pleasure from that. The reality is that I do not have consumers coming to my surgeries to complain about the nature of Sainsbury's or the choice and service they have in the purchase of food products in the United Kingdom. Nor do they complain about the service they receive from Marks and Spencer. [Interruption.] Those who come in late to these debates no doubt want to interrupt from a sedentary position and deny the generality of the statistical evidence that comes from survey after survey. It is sad, but it is a reality. I do not seek to encourage complaints against the nationalised industries. I refer to the reality of the way in which the consumer is served. Monopoly is, for me, monopoly. I stress the word "monopoly" because it is the enemy of consumer choice.

Mr. Cunliffe: The British Gas Corporation never had a monopoly. A right was built into the previous order to sell to a private supplier direct. That power was never used. That must be stressed. It is, therefore, not necessary.

Mr. Moore: It is not my desire to discriminate against any public corporation. It would be wrong for me to draw excessive attention to the nature, or pattern, of complaints drawn up by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—not by my Department—and the abuse of its monopoly position by a corporation. I do not seek to continue the debate in that area because it is our job to

remove the aspect of monopoly power that affects consumer choice. I repeat, monopoly is the enemy of consumer choice.
The third, legitimate point is one that the Opposition should heed. Does a monopoly corporation serve the employee in terms of jobs and investment? I again refer to the article by Mr. Butt. He said:
It is the public not the private sector that is riven by disputes; where the worker is least happy; where industries are most often in decline; where services most conspicuously fail to satisfy the public; and where workers' resistance to change intensifies decline and inhibits investment.

Mr. Leighton: If the State had not put public money into firms such as Ferranti, Fairey Aviation, British Leyland and British Shipbuilders, the workers would not have had any jobs.

Mr. Moore: I cannot accept that proposition in arguing my present philosophy. I am not referring to the reality of decisions taken at any particular time. I am arguing philosophically about the nature of what, in the long term, produces successful employment for employees.
Let us suppose that we had lost the key debate yesterday and that all the banks were to be nationalised. Let us consider the number of jobs involved in industries which have been nationalised since the war. There is a genuine dilemma about long-term jobs provided through a single, centralised corporation which seeks to serve the consumer.
The question of capital has been mentioned. In the House on Monday I referred to capital investment in coal as opposed to investment in the North Sea oil industry. The distinction is extraordinary. The coal industry is a massive energy industry. More money has been invested in it than was envisaged in "Plan for Coal", and we welcome that. More than £3 billion has been invested, but investment in the North Sea through the private sector amounts to about £26 billion. There is a dilemma in how best to serve the employee as well as the consumer.

Mr. Leighton: The Minister says that he is discussing the topic philosophically. I am not sure what that means. It seems that he is discussing it vaguely and in a woolly fashion. He is not dealing with detail. Will he address himself to my argument—that the industries which have been nationalised since the war, such as Rolls-Royce, have failed in private hands? They collapsed under private ownership. Can the Minister name industries which operated well under private ownership?

Mr. Moore: I shall be delighted to do so. I was about to be less woolly and more practical and discuss the British National Oil Corporation which, by anybody's definition, was not exactly unsuccessful. It is peculiar that when a Conservative attempts to argue philosophically that is regarded as woolly, peculiar and strange and when someone argues about something as archaic as Socialism it is thought to be practical and pragmatic.
The hon. Members for Newham, North-East and Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) asked some specific questions. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East, with a lack of detailed knowledge, talked about the loss of public control through the sale of Britoil shares to the nation. As the hon. Member knows, although he may not say it in public, that will not happen. Controls, as opposed to ownership, are unchanged in terms of the nation by the Government's action in the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act. That always philosophically confuses Socialists.
Using rather lurid language, the hon. Gentleman talked about the scandalous nature of our BNOC privatisation plan. I remind the House of the objectives behind privatisation. I acknowledge the legitimate argument from the Opposition Front Bench about our desire to reduce the size of the public sector. We think that no activity should be owned and controlled by the State unless there are positive and specific reasons for it. That is not a denial of some good aspects of State ownership, but no such reasons exist for the State ownership of oil exploration and production. The successful development of the North Sea is the aim and achievement of the private sector. Enterprise, competition and initiative are cental to industrial success. Privatisation is in the best interests of BNOC.
Britoil must be free to develop its potential without the constraints of the public sector. Britoil will be free to develop on its own initiative. The Government still aim to carry out the sale of 51 per cent. of the shares in Britoil before the end of the year, subject to market conditions. It is impossible to foresee what market conditions, including the oil market, will be later this year. No one can sensibly make a final judgment at this stage.
The hon. Gentleman called in aid the right hon. Member for Bristol, South, who has an important GMWU interest in the gas showrooms' debate. The Government said that they were determined to take action, following the criticism in the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, to encourage competition in the domestic gas appliances market to break the dominance of the British Gas Corporation. We considered it essential that any action should be accompanied by measures to maintain existing standards of safety. This will require legislative measures and, therefore, there must be a delay before the Government can proceed. Delay will allow consideration of how to proceed. The Government will examine seriously and carefully any constructive proposals that may be offered, provided that they meet the Government's objective of breaking the monopoly and ensuring effective competition.

Mr. Prescott: I can recall a company called Comet in the area that I represent pressing hard for gas showrooms to be sold off because more British products could be sold thereafter. If anyone enters a Comet showroom he will see more foreign products—including gas appliances—than in most other outlets. I have no doubt that that is at the expense of British manufacturing companies. This is what lies behind the unions' fears.

Mr. Moore: I take the hon. Gentleman's argument seriously. There will be detailed and lengthy consultations on the British manufacturing factor.
The hon. Members for Leigh and Newham, North-East raised again the Amersham International sale. Their language was almost as lurid as that used on that infamous, or famous, day in March. I thought that we had an exhaustive debate on 16 March. I said that within the context of their commitment to privatisation the Government approached the share sale with four key

objectives—to preserve the firm as an independent company, to maintain the sense of commitment of the staff, an excellent staff which has been a key factor in the firm's success, to ensure as wide a spread as possible of share ownership among the general public and the company's employees, and to achieve a good return for the Exchequer. As we said at the time, maximising the proceeds to the Exchequer was not the sole consideration. We took into account other considerations which were shared by the employees and, I thought, by Opposition Members. Taken as a whole, the objectives were successfully achieved.
The hon. Member for Leigh is usually lucid and learned in coal debates, but he caused us to be rather confused about gas supply. There was terrifying confusion between ownership and controls—for example, depletion controls and licensing controls. These controls will be unchanged by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act. They will not be impacted by that measure. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the key importance of controls in the long term. I think that he is arguing for stricter application of the controls, which is a different matter from what we have been debating tonight.
The hon. Gentleman talked about a shortage of supply. That situation has not been changed by Government action. I submit that that action might create better opportunities. We are dependent for more than 25 per cent. of our gas supplies this year from across the median line. That is a much larger percentage than in consequence of a shortage of supply. The Government believe that their action in breaking the monopsony will encourage corporations to develop and produce gas from which the nation will benefit, because additional exploration and development will create new jobs and offset our clear shortage of gas.
The Government's approach throughout this debate and their period in office has been to return as much business to the private sector as possible. Some notable successes have already been achieved with British Aerospace, Cable and Wireless, the National Freight Corporation and, in my Department, Amersham International. We have plans for the privatisation of other companies. The House knows that my right hon. Friend has steered successfully the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill to the Royal Assent and we are pressing on with our plans for returning the exploration and production businesses of BNOC to the private sector, where they belong. We now have powers to dispose of the British Gas Corporation's offshore oil assets. Where possible, we have removed any statutory monopoly—for example, the liberalisation of the telecommunications network—and we plan to remove restrictions on the private generation of electricity.
It is remarkable that in the 30 or 50 years in which Britain has had nationalised industries the trend has been towards ever more public ownership, despite the nationalised industries' evident failure to satisfy the public. We are proud of the fact that the trend is now reversed, the climate changed and that competition again has a chance.

Orders of the Day — Social Security Payments

Mr. John Tilley: I wish, even at this late hour, to speak about the increasing delays suffered by my constituents who claim social security. The delays are becoming worse and are causing confusion, distress and misery to my constituents and, I suspect, to those of many other hon. Members.
Let me make it clear from the beginning that I am not criticising or attacking the staff at social security offices. On the contrary, with the Government's cuts, the staff are as much the victims as are the claimants. I have always had courteous and efficient service from local managers, and I am aware that counter and clerical staff struggle conscientiously to provide a decent service. The blame for the present crisis lies squarely with the Government, who refuse to provide the staff needed to deal with the rising tide of poverty that they have created.
That charge is borne out by the figures that I received recently in answer to Parliamentary Questions. I have been told that in Kennington, from March 1979 until March 1982, the number of supplementary benefit cases—apart from pensioners—increased from 3,702 to 6,232, whereas the staff increased only from 61 to 82. At the Brixton office, there was an even larger increase from 2,780 to 6,562, while the staff was increased only from 131 to 160. There was a doubling of those forced to claim supplementary benefit while the staff to cope with that increase has risen by only one-quarter. During the same period, contributory benefit claims fell, largely because, when there are fewer people in work, fewer are sick and claim contributory benefit. Supplementary benefit claims involve much more work than contributory benefit claims. It is different work. There is no doubt that there has been a massive cut in staff resources in relation to need.
I wish to give some examples of how the staff cuts affect ordinary people in London.
I can give some examples from my surgery. A man of 87 was ill, and because of his condition needed new sheets and underwear often. In April 1981 he applied for a grant to buy these things. He heard nothing further, and because of his age and condition he found it difficult to chase the matter up. A local councillor tried to help but was not able to achieve any result until, in March of this year, the social security office discovered what had gone wrong and gave a grant of £108. By that time, a year after the original request, the man had got into rent arrears because he had had to buy these items out of his living allowance. He died last month, so the last months of his life were overshadowed by this long delay.
There is another example, about which the Minister may be aware because I have written to him about it, but it is an important one. A man who is a part-time music teacher, and as such obliged to claim supplementary benefit during school holidays, found that, because of excessive delays by the office in dealing with his claims for the Easter and summer holiday period, he got into arrears.
The man's landlords took him to court to evict him. Eventually the payment for the rent came through, but in the meantime he had been taken to court and had had to pay £51 court costs. I intervened with the local manager

at the regional level to try to get the costs paid, but it was only when I wrote to the Minister that it was agreed that an ex gratia payment should be made to him.
On 11 June I received a letter from the Minister, but the man has not yet been reimbursed for the court costs and at the end of July he is still awaiting payment for his claim for the Easter holiday period. That delay continues even though there has been ministerial intervention. It makes one wonder just how many other cases there are.
There have always been cases of delay and there always will be, even in the best regulated and staffed institutions. The point that I am trying to put across is that there is a consistent pattern of a growing backlog of all claimants, and that a situation that was not particularly good three years ago is now getting very much worse.
Another case in an office in my constituency is that the rent increases of April of this year have still not been processed for the local authority tenants who are also on supplementary benefit. The specific case that I am thinking of resulted in a pensioner getting back pay of £3·18 a week for the time since 5 April. Clearly, that represents a considerable amount in the budget of a pensioner who has no other resources.
The local citizens advice bureaux report the same pattern. I quote the views of the Streatham advice bureau, which deals with part of my constituency.
Over the past year or so there has been a substantial increase in the number of queries dealt with by the Bureau in connection with … benefit … claims. This has coincided with a marked deterioration in the time taken by the DHSS to process claims and queries, making it increasingly more difficult and time-consuming for advice workers to resolve claimants' problems. This situation is exacerbated by the increasing general inaccessibility of the DHSS. All too often, a local officer cannot be contacted at all by telephone by us or by the claimant because the lines are permanently engaged … letters can remain unanswered for months. Sometimes, where benefit has not arrived when due, the claimant is told by the DHSS that the quickest way of obtaining information regarding benefit is to call in person at the local office. This usually entails waiting 2–3 hours in a packed waiting room".
The Clapham CAB, which is in my constituency and serves a large part of it, reports 28 cases that just one of the workers has of problems awaiting action by the DHSS.
Let me give the bare details of a few cases. A Giro went astray in January 1982. The client tried repeatedly to get recovery up to July 1982, and then came to the CAB for help. Another involved a single payment claimed in April 1981. It was still outstanding in February 1982. In a third case, a claim was lodged in February 1982, and benefit was stopped in March 1982 because of a query about resources. The claimant wrote six letters, one of which was sent by recorded delivery, but no money was paid between March and June. No replies were received to the letters.
So there is a consistent pattern. The Government are deluding themselves if they think that they are saving money by this strategem of understaffing the offices. Inefficiency and waste of resources are the result of the delays, and other agencies have to step in and make payments from public funds. The welfare rights officer of the local social services department tells me that
the introduction of a new legal framework to the Supplementary Benefit scheme in November 1980 was supposed to simplify the scheme, and … alleviate some of the previous problems".
Since then, she says,
the standard of service from DHSS officers has been uneven—with different … officers appearing to be near breaking point at different times. However, the same problems


persist: on a day to day basis, the problems are long delays in getting through on the telephone, delays in appointments, delays to letters, delays in payments.
In Social Services, we experience this in a direct way in terms of clients coming to us and needing help to sort out a delay, or indeed, with vulnerable families coming to us who have no money left to buy even food for their children. This is reflected in the payments we make under the Child Care Act 1980 (Section One). I have looked at some recent Section One statistics to discern the recent trends".
She then gives a sample of what she found.
In May/June 1982, … 106 payments recorded to date, of which 46 had been made because of a delay in payment to a family on Supplementary Benefit. Six (6) of these involved a Child Benefit delay;"—
which, of course, is not the local office, but
forty (40) were Supplementary Benefit delays".
So there is a serious and a growing problem.
We spend much time in the House discussing whether the social security regulations are too complicated. I see from Monday's debate that it took the Minister over an hour to explain the new housing benefits. We also discuss whether the benefits are adequate. We are in danger of assuming that people who have entitlement get those entitlements promptly—or even at all. Increasingly, that is not happening. Even if people manage to work out their rights, and even if they qualify for a benefit which we on these Benches believe is now a matter of bare subsidence levels, they still have to wait for many poverty-stricken weeks, or possibly months, for those small benefits. Pensioners and families who are already struggling with the problems of unemployment, soaring fuel costs and housing shortage, have to cope with this delay as well.
The Government, by refusing to provide sufficient staff, are penalising and pauperising those who, by every definition, are already the weakest members of our society. The supplementary benefits system is intended to be a safety net to catch those who need help, but one that is so slow to operate that it might as well be lying on the ground will not break anyone's fall.
The sad irony is that this administrative poverty trap is catching people in an area which is supposed to receive the full benefit of the Government's inner city programme. I am not saying for a moment that the problems of Brixton will be solved simply by sending out giros on time, but it would help. It would not only ensure that people could eat regularly and clothe their children, but it might also help to reduce the resentment of public officials that has so often been noticed in such areas.
There is a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Services on the Lambeth Partnership Committee, although not the Minister who is with us tonight. That committee is supposed to co-ordinate the various Government Departments and the local authority's response to the problems of the inner city. Over a year ago the Partnership Committee agreed that there should be a special sub-committee to tackle the issue of income maintenance—the technical jargon for how people keep body and soul together from week to week. That sub-committee has never met because the DHSS has never been able to agree on its terms of reference. Of all the DHSS delays in Lambeth that we are considering tonight, that is the least excusable.
Government staffing cuts, coinciding with cuts in the value of benefit and the introduction of new and complicated regulations, are creating thousands of hidden but desperate tragedies and crises among pensioners and families, particularly single parent families, in Lambeth.

I hope that the Minister will take urgent action to alleviate the unnecessary hardship that exists just two miles from the House, and, as I said at the beginning, I suspect in many other constituencies as well.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): When I answered a parliamentary question tabled by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) on 12 July in which he asked me for fairly extensive reports on the manpower position in his local Department of Health and Social Services offices, I wondered if he would make some use of it. We virtually had to hire a special van to deliver the volume of information that we provided instead of send mg it through the post. Some use of that information is clearly apparent from his speech today.
I recognise both the sincerity and vigour with which the hon. Gentleman has put the problems that he finds in his constituency. I do not want to give the impression that I dismiss the problems to which he has drawn attention or that I do anything other than recognise that this is not an easy time in many DHSS offices, especially those dealing with supplementary benefit claims against the background of the rise in the number of such claimants in recent years.
It is not appropriate to discuss the reasons for that rise, but it exists and it has undoubtedly created many problems in our local offices.
Many of the schemes that we operate, including the supplementary benefit scheme, have undergone a transition. To some extent, the new supplementary benefit scheme that was introduced in 1980 is still experiencing a settling down period. In addition, we have recently introduced new procedures and payment methods for those in receipt of both sickness benefit and supplementary benefit. Again, that creates some difficulties.
Another point that I must make regarding current problems may be less comforting to the hon. Gentleman and he may less readily accept it. In his constituency, as in others within the Greater London council area, we have also had to cope over the past few months with additional difficulty arising from considerable confusion and extra work on claimants' rates bills, supplementary rate demands and refunds following the frequently changing position over London Transport costs. Again, the circumstances it would be wrong to enter into a political slanging match about who is to blame for that. However, within London that has undoubtedly created significant difficulties of a kind that, frankly, the DHSS could not readily have planned for and which have contributed to the problems on which the hon. Gentleman has touched.
We are at a traditionally difficult time of year for DHSS offices, because they are in the throes of an uprating in preparation for the new rates passed by the House a week or two ago, and payable from November. Alongside that routine exercise for November are the partial start for the new housing benefit scheme and other, lesser, changes in the supplementary benefit scheme.
Another seasonal problem is the annual influx of claims from school leavers and students. Within the next 12 months we shall have to transfer the remainder of suitable cases on to housing benefit and also cope with the implications of the new statutory sick pay scheme on the national insurance side. I have repeated what I said at the outset because I do not want to minimise the task that faces staff in local offices or the problems that are faced by them


and sometimes by claimants such as the unemployed and single parents. Those problems are undoubtedly sometimes considerable.
I particularly welcomed some of what the hon. Gentleman said because neither he nor I, as I said in an earlier debate, would want to paint an unduly gloomy picture. I welcome his remarks about the efforts that staff loyally and conscientiously make to deal with claimants' problems in such circumstances. I sometimes think that it is a pity that more appreciation is not expressed about the number of cases that are dealt with properly and well. In a year, the system deals with huge numbers of people and claims. The hon. Gentleman rightly acknowledged that it is often easy to pick out the cases that do not work well and to convey the impression that that is the norm.
In my judgment, at least, the norm is that the system works surprisingly well in meeting the needs of claimants despite the number of cases. The staff work hard and well to do the best that they can for those whom they are trying to serve. I emphasise that my colleagues in the Department very much appreciate these efforts. They are also appreciated by hon. Members. Since becoming a Minister some four or five months ago, I have been particularly encouraged by the number of hon. Members who have come up to me in the corridors of the House and told me what a good service they get as Members of Parliament through their contacts with their local offices. I place that on record because the hard and loyal work done by the staff and managers in our offices and the service that they provide to claimants, together with the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman outlined, is an important part of the picture.
After giving that broad background I shall turn to the complementing system operated in the Department to ensure that the staffing arrangements are matched, to the best of our ability, with the work load. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is one of those who labours under the impression that we do not have a system that is designed to set the staffing levels and to provide local office managers with the resources to handle that heavy work load and that takes into account all the factors that have been described.
The complementing system, by which we decide on the complements of staff issued to each DHSS region, starts by assessing the number of staff we need nationally to do the work on hand. We add to that in respect of the work we expect to have to handle within the next complementing period. Those estimates are based on the proposed legislative and procedural changes that we plan to introduce and also, importantly, on forecasts of changes in the "load"—the size of our clientele and the number of claims. In making those forecasts we take account of changes in unemployment levels, population size and distribution, and other factors that are likely to influence the amount of work that we have to do.
We have to bear in mind the fact that not all our work is evenly spread thoughout the year. Like many other businesses we have peaks and troughs and we need to provide some flexibility to cope with them. We need a margin of safety to cope with the unexpected, such as a strike or an epidemic. All those factors are taken into account in the provision of manpower. Most is provided in terms of permanent posts, though, in order to give the necessary flexibility for the peaks and the unexpected,

some is provided by way of a reserve which is expressed in terms of "man years" rather than permanent posts. The reserve is usually used to employ casual staff or to enable permanent staff to work overtime. I want to emphasise that it is a vital part of the resources that we have allocated to meet the demands of the work to be done, and we make every effort to utilise this reserve element to the full.
Part of the problem in the offices in the constituency of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central, about which I have been able to make more detailed inquiries, is that the trade union side is opposed to, and in many offices in his constituency is virtually preventing, the use of overtime and casual staff to meet the peaks of demand that we have at present. I do not want to embark on an attack on the trade union side, but that attitude does not help against the background of a system that has to be partly based on the use of temporary measures such as casual staff and overtime to meet inevitable peaks and troughs. It makes it difficult for the best complementing system to cope entirely with the difficulties which face his offices at the present.
We are negotiating to overcome the problem about the use of casual staff and overtime. It is an important part of the problem facing the offices which the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central has discussed this evening.
The hon. Member has suggested that the staff whom we provide cannot keep up with the increases in the work because their numbers are not keeping pace with the rise in claims. The system I have described in broad terms is a sophisticated one which does not simply tie staff numbers to claims in a strict relationship. To a degree it is misleading to relate figures of claims to staff as he did by quoting the parliamentary answer that I gave him earlier in the year.
The complementing system takes account of increasing claims, but it also attends to many other factors, such as the different amounts of work generated by different types of claims, the changes in procedures and policies, and to the forecast changes in loads—their size, type and duration. It also checks and adjusts staffing levels at frequent intervals to ensure that the right staffing provision is being made—in other words, how closely actual experience matches the forecast. The system provides a national complement of staff which is shared out between the regions. Local and regional managers are responsible for allocating and adjusting staff numbers at the local level in the light of local circumstances.
I shall specifically ask the appropriate regional office to look at the hon. Member's area and to consider whether there is anything that it can do to provide additional help to mitigate the long waiting times to which he has referred—and which I have noticed from the reports made to me—for people to be seen in some of the local offices when they are making supplementary benefit claims.
I should like to look at some of the cases that the hon. Member has mentioned if he will provide me with further details. There is a case that I remember corresponding with him about and at which I looked closely. I was pleased that we were able to agree an ex gratia payment to his music teacher constituent. I already have details of that case and I shall look at it again to see why the ex gratia payment has not yet been made. I shall institute urgent inquiries to resolve the matter quickly. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to look at other cases, and lets me have details, I shall do so.
I am not sure whether in recent years the Department has adequately explained the complementing system to the public or even to its staff. As I said in a recent parliamentary answer to the hon. Gentleman and earlier in the year to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), we are preparing a guide to the complementing system which I hope will make it readily understandable to the public. We intend to place it in the Library, and I shall arrange for a copy to be sent to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that we can make it more widely available to the staff throughout the country so that the sophisticated and complicated system is more fully explained and can be better judged by those who are part of it and those who are affected by it.
I recognise that what I have said will not completely remove the hon. Gentleman's anxieties. I am not saying that there are no difficulties. I hope that he will feel that I have replied constructively. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised the matter even at this hour. It has given me an opportunity to say something about our complementing system, to pay tribute to the staff and managers in our local offices for the job that they are doing and to assure the hon. Gentleman that we have the difficulties very much in mind and are keen to do everything practicable to assist.

Orders of the Day — Bradford (Industrial Assistance)

Mr. Edward Lyons: In the past six weeks in Bradford about 1,500 redundancies have been declared in three major engineering enterprises.
Bradford has depended heavily on the textile industry, which has suffered badly from contraction. The number of employees in the industry has fallen remarkably. It is an old industry and some people argued that that was only to be expected. But in recent weeks the malaise has spread in a big way to the engineering industry.
GEC (Large Machines) Ltd. has declared 576 redundancies. Rank Wharfedale, which makes loudspeakers, has closed completely this month, with the loss of 350 jobs. International Harvester, a multinational company making tractors, has announced a closure with the loss of 510 jobs. At its peak the company employed 2,100 people in Bradford. Its tractors were extremely useful to the developing world, and those countries will now be starved of the means to produce more from their soil.
Those three engineering closures follow a major closure of Thorn Consumer Electronics not long ago, with a loss of about 2,000 jobs. The main activity was television manufacture. Only a few years before closure that firm had employed 4,000 people, which was reduced gradually to 2,000, and then there was closure.
Phrases, understandably, have been bandied about Bradford in the past two or three weeks to the effect that it is likely to become an industrial desert. The situation could not be more alarming. There has been the colossal contraction in textile manufacturing followed by the savage body blows in engineering. The local newspaper, the Telegraph &amp; Argus, when it heard of the closure of International Harvester, stated that that was the third 10 inch nail to be driven into the city's coffin within weeks.
A public house licensee said that his sales acted as a barometer of the prosperity of Bradford. His lunchtime trade had gone down eight-fold in the past few years. That showed the amount of money available for purchases. As one goes about Bradford, one sees that there is less money than there once was for the purchase of all sorts of consumer goods.
The CBI, referring to Yorkshire and Humberside, said recently, in contradiction of Government claims to the contrary, that the regional economy showed no improvement and that there was evidence of trading conditions worsening for some companies. The Bradford chamber of commerce president also said recently that for every big firm closing down in the city, 20 smaller ones were going out of business. It is clear that Bradford is no exception within the general rule that family companies in Britain are going down in their thousands.
I do not know what the Government's estimate is of the contraction in the industrial base in Britain since 1979. I think that it is running at about one-fifth. One wonders whether contraction at such speed is ever recoverable. It is certainly not likely to be recovered in the short term.
The unemployment register in the Bradford, Shipley and Bingley employment area shows that 26,000 are unemployed. Between June and July the number of unemployed youngsters in that area jumped by 772. Adult unemployment rose by 407. When one considers that school leavers have yet to come on the market and that the


International Harvester closure does not take effect until October, one sees how depressing those figures are. Unfortunately, they are typical. In the University and Little Horton wards in my constituency, as early as April 1981 unemployment was over 20 per cent. The figures for wool textiles in West Yorkshire show that since 1975, output has fallen by 27 per cent. The work force in West Yorkshire in wool textiles and clothing has fallen from 240,0000 in 1961 to 85,00 in 1981. That haemorrhage continues.
The picture is bleak. One does not want to sound too depressing, but it is better to tell the truth than to conceal the reality of what is happening. No one source is responsible for everything that has occurred. There are various contributory factors, including inefficient management, inadequate capital, resistance to change by work forces, overmanning and restrictive practices. It is fair to the Government to point out that there has been an underlying downward tendency for years under successive Governments.
However, this Government decided on a kill or cure approach. I did not believe at the outset that most of British industry was in a condition to be submerged in an ice-cold economic bath for a prolonged period. The past three years have shown that British industry cannot stand such a prolonged immersion. Some parts were too sickly to withstand such a treatment. Far from curing, the treatment is killing, as is clear in Bradford.
Had the Government expected that the results of their policy would be so meagre after three years they would not have embarked on it. I think that they believed that a few months of their policy would start to produce an upturn and that the distasteful medicine would have to be administered for only about six months before monetarism began to produce improvements. After three years, the Government have reduced the rate of inflation to a little below the level that they inherited, but when one sees what is happening to British industry and unemployment it is impossible to say that there have been any major benefits from the Government's policy, However, it has caused considerable harm.
The Government have vastly accelerated underlying adverse trends in the economy. Nationally we have 3·2 million unemployed; 28 applicants chasing every vacancy; manufacturing output 15 per cent. down since 1979 and, in the second quarter of this year, the underlying trend of unemployment rising at 30,000 monthly. Profits remain very low for most companies and, according to the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, there is for the industry:
no sign at the present time of a tangible recovery.
Something must be done to give hope to people and to reverse, or at least stem, the unemployment trend. The Government's policy offers no hope. The unemployment projections are upwards.
There are dangers in what is happening. We see a growing alienation and a deepening of the polarisation in society. If we are to avoid a breakdown in society as we know it, the Government must stop firms going to the wall and stop the horrifying and relentless climb in unemployment.
What should be done? There is no shortage of suggestions. It is sometimes said that Oppositions are good only at screaming about bad news and never make

constructive suggestions at least to ameliorate the patient's illness. Therefore, I should like to mention a number of actions that the Government might take—it is by no means an exhaustive list—to ameliorate the situation in places such as Bradford. They cannot alter the situation overnight, but they could give hope and we could see an improvement within a reasonably short period.
I agree with those who say that the Government should move to lower interest rates, that they should abolish the national insurance surcharge, that they should now seriously consider a reduction in the male pension age, that they should examine job-sharing, with a phased withdrawal from jobs by the over-60s pending a reduction in the retirement age, and that there should be substantial increases in capital investment in the public and private sectors, with some assistance from the Government.
I know the arguments about throwing money at problems and the argument that if one causes massive inflation one creates more unemployment and causes more damage. But I agree with all those, including many of those who have hitherto supported the Conservative Government, who say that the economy now needs a stimulus from the Government and that they should not be mesmerised by the principles on which they have so far managed the economy. I believe that privately many Conservative Members would dearly love the Government to give such a stimulus.
There should be a financial inducement to youngsters to stay on at school after the age of 16, since it is among young people in particular that unemployment is so high. We release far too many ill-equipped young people on to the labour market. We should follow the Continental example of seeking to achieve a better education for them before they go onto the labour market.
Women suffer particularly badly in the present climate. We could create perhaps 100,000 jobs for women in the social services—for example, as home helps—at a cost of not much more than £300 million.
Most important of all, since 15 per cent. of our unemployed are construction workers, we should increase public investment in construction, infrastructure and housing schemes of all kinds. There is the opportunity here to employ many semi-skilled and unskilled workers as well as skilled workers. For the money spent we could employ considerable numbers. The economy generally would benefit from more people earning money, and the country would look a better place than it does today environmentally.
There are schemes, such as the proposal to pay a £70-a-week grant for a year to every employer taking on an additional adult worker who has been unemployed for over six months, with the proviso that the jobs would have to be extra and not replacement jobs. It has been estimated that the net cost of such a scheme would be £500 million, and that the scheme alone could generate a quarter of a million jobs.
One could expand the community enterprise programme. One could expand systems for small businesses. They are absolutely crucial as there is little sign of expansion from large businesses. One could set up a Cabinet industrial policy committee, chaired by the Prime Minister and supported by an advisory committee of industrialists and leading economic Ministers to produce a dynamic strategy for reviving the economy. One could revitalise the British technology group to provide equity capital for large scale, high-risk projects in


partnership with private industry. One could even return to the concept of a Minister with responsibilities for science—a position that was once filled by the present Lord Chancellor—not just as a name but with power to give priority to scientific innovation and development. There is room for better credit schemes and we could have far better training systems.
There is a suggested scheme whereby one tells employers that a percentage of income should be applied to training schemes for apprentices, for new and existing employees, and that if an employer spends more than that percentage, the Government will pay the balance but that if less is spent, the employer must pay tax equal to the amount by which he has underspent. The effects of such a scheme should be investigated. There may be snags to it but at least it would induce employers to put a high priority on training their employees.
Those are among the steps that the Government could take. If they did all of that together, they could be said to be throwing money at the problem. Curiously, many schemes do not involve such a heavy expenditure as one might think, as one is taking people out of the dole queue. As was pointed out in this week's debate on unemployment, it costs about £5,000 a year in public money to have one person unemployed. There are ways in which the Government could restructure this economic approach to make a real attack on unemployment, to give people hope and to start building Britain's economy so that it is competitive, healthy and expanding.
At the moment, one can see only more contraction of the economy. Members of Parliament for Bradford do not hear people talk optimistically about the city's industrial future. With the Government in the south, there is no confidence that they even understand the growing devastation in the north. That has worrying implications for the social fabric in the long term.
I know that many other city areas have serious problems. Although I belong to one party I appeal, on behalf of all Members of Parliament for Bradford and the people of Bradford, to the Government to do something. I am not just saying "Do something"—that is easy—I have given some idea of what can be done. I am sure that the Government have schemes in hand that have not been put into practice. They could act on them if they had the will to do so and realised the seriousness of the problem.
I see no possibility of an improvement in the situation in my area in the next year or two if the Government continue in the way that they are doing. I see only further damage, further closures, further redundancies, further contractions, more people on the dole and more youngsters with nothing to do. It is absolutely terrifying. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something to cheer up the people in that city.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I in no way underestimate the seriousness of the situation in Bradford and I sympathise with all those who have been or are about to be made redundant and with their families.
I suspect, as the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) said, that the contraction is a good deal faster in Bradford than in the United Kingdom as a whole. This graphically illustrates some of the

structural, technological and market—including international market—changes that our own and all advanced economies face.
The hon. and learned Gentleman very fairly pointed out some of the factors that had led to the present situation in companies and industries in his area. He said that when the Government came to power British industry was too sickly to withstand the policies that we have pursued. I believe that he is half right in that. It is always dangerous to generalise about British industry as a whole, but for a number of reasons much of British industry had not been in a competitive state for a considerable period and it was too sickly to withstand the gales of international recession that have occurred since 1979. The problems with which we have had to deal include all the factors that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, but especially the uncompetitive nature of so much of British industry compared with more successful companies and countries overseas at a time of world recession, caused in large part by the oil crisis, and of very fast-moving technological change.
The examples that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave of companies that have recently got into difficulties and of industries such as the wool textile industry illustrate the international nature of the problem for many of these companies and the fact that so often at present lack of orders is a feature of international markets and the companies' traditional export markets as much as of the domestic market. The problem is no longer really because of the overvaluation of the pound last year—as was then argued, although I shall not go into that argument—but because all too often the orders are not there in international markets.
The industries that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned in the first part of his speech illustrate my point. He referred to the problems of the wool textile industry. As he rightly recognised, there has been a decline in employment in the industry as a whole for many years. He gave figures from 1961 until the present. There has been a steady decline. Again, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, that was caused by international factors and by technological change and change in the demand for individual products as much as by anything else.
The Government appreciate the seriousness of the problems that have faced and continue to face the textile and clothing industries. We have debated this frequently in the House and we are doing all that we can in the framework of our domestic economic policies and international obligations to create the right environment in the longer term for an efficient economy in which the industry can compete.
In particular, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know of all the efforts that have been made in relation to the multi-fibre arrangement. This industry has the greatest battery of protection available to any industry. We believe that the Community mandate for the negotiation of the bilateral agreement on the framework of the renewed MFA gives us the possibility of renewed restraints on the supplying countries a good deal tougher than those which at present exist. I shall not enter into a long debate on the textile industry, but this is an attempt to give some temporary protection to an industry that is going through substantial change.
Of the individual companies involved, the hon. and learned Gentleman referred first to the redundancies at


GEC (Large Machines) Ltd., at Thornbury. He will know, as the company made clear, that those redundancies were due to the worsening demand for its electric motors. The Government are naturally concerned about those who lost their jobs, and the services of the Manpower Services Commission have been made available. The decision to reduce the work force was, as it had to be, for the judgment of the company in the light of the management's assessment of the market.
The company considered the total closure of the site, but retained 350 jobs at Thornbury because it was aware of the employment problem in that area. The company talked to officials in my Department and I understand that the decision is irreversible. It was taken in the full knowledge of current Government assistance schemes, but the market no longer existed for that product.
Rank Wharfedale, and the closure of its factory in Idle, is a graphic illustration of these problems. I regret the demise of such a long established and well-known manufacturer, and I have sympathy for those who have lost their jobs. Unfortunately, Rank Wharfedale had been making losses for some time. The recession and the changes in the audio market resulted in a sharp drop in sales. The company had been working a two or three day week and at only 25 per cent. of capacity for some months. This was partly responsible for the substantial loss of £3·75 million incurred by the industrial division in 1981. The change in world markets for that product is significant.
The world market for audio equipment has suffered a decline since the peak levels attained in 1979–80. That is due to the world decline in economic activity and to increased competition for consumers' discretionary expenditure represented, for example, by video cassette recorders, sales of which have rapidly expanded in the United Kingdom. There is a much greater concentration in that area of consumer expenditure than on the products manufactured by Rank Wharfedale. Moreover, there is the increased, highly efficient and advanced competition from Far East countries.
Selective financial assistance under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 is available to any parties interested in taking over any of the company's assests and restoring some employment. My Department is open to discussions on that possibility with anyone who is interested. The worrying aspect of the situation is that it is again international and modern trends that have brought about a complete change in the market.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the closure of the International Harvester plant at Idle. Hon. Members will be aware of the continuing depression of agricultural machinery and tractor markets in nearly all countries. International Harvester is an international company. We know that other international companies in the same sphere have also faced an extremely difficult time.
The world depression is a significant factor in this respect. Tractor manufacturers in the United Kingdom, including International Harvester, have traditionally sold a high percentage of their output overseas. The factors contributing to the world depression show no signs of alleviation. The hon. and learned Gentleman must accept that we can do nothing substantially to alter the orders from other countries for those products. No general improvement in demand is forecast for the near future—although in certain areas such as the United

Kingdom a small growth may take place this year—and consequently all manufacturers in the industry are operating substantially below capacity. Naturally, manufacturers are looking for ways of rationalising their operations.
The world-wide lack of demand has meant curtailing production by short-time working, which has resulted in redundancies. The decision announced last Friday by International Harvester to close the tractor component factory led to 500 job losses.
Only in March the American parent group took the exceptional step of temporarily halting all tractor production in the United States at its Illinois plant in an effort to rationalise. The Department's ability to influence international markets and the operational pattern of international companies is relatively limited. I listened carefully to everything suggested tonight, but there was nothing that could affect the position of Rank Wharfedale or of International Harvester. Officials in my Department are in close touch with International Harvester and have been made aware by the company of the group's deep difficulties and the impact that that has on its United Kingdom operations.
A number of alternatives to closing the Bradford factory have been carefully considered by the company, but unfortunately it is not possible to avoid the decision to close. We hope that the company can maintain its important manufacturing base in Britain. The full range of Government financial incentives is available to help with capital or development projects.
I shall now consider what can be done and examine the hon. and learned Gentleman's prescription. We have recently had both a debate and a statement about assisted area status, so it is not necessary to go over the Government's regional policy or the changes made to bring assisted areas down from covering 44 per cent. of the working population to 27 per cent. The main objective is to ensure that regional aid is concentrated on the areas of greatest need. The evidence, such as it is, indicates that that is the most effective way of carrying out regional policy.
Bradford is to retain intermediate area status. Like the other areas which will continue to be assisted after 31 July, that status will be enhanced because the coverage of assisted areas generally is to be reduced. That means that places with a form of assisted area status will be better placed in terms of regional policy. That is especially so in Bradford, since Bradford will be the only assisted travel-to-work area in West Yorkshire.
The July level of unemployment is 15·3 per cent. That compares with a development area rate for June of 16 per cent. We have to take a number of other factors into account when assessing the status of a travel-to-work area. There is no evidence of a necessity to change Bradford's status. But from 1 August, Bradford will be relatively well placed.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the loss of jobs in the pipeline and to International Harvester in particular. I recognise that there will be a change in the percentage, but it is difficult to conclude from any projection that a change in assisted status should be made. We must look for evidence of permanent structural change relative to other parts of the country. Our pledge remains, if there is clear evidence of permanent structural change relative to other areas. We shall consider any individual


travel-to-work area in which it is clear, for whatever reason, that that is about to happen. There is not that evidence at present.

Mr. John Prescott: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: No, I shall not give way. In fairness to other hon. Members who have been sitting up all night, I shall concentrate on the debate. Intermediate area status is not the only benefit that has been given to the city. By virtue of its status as a programme area under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, Bradford has been recognised as having serious inner city problems and so qualifies for help under the urban programme towards the cost of projects aimed at regenerating its inner area. Slightly less than £4 million has been allocated in 1982–83 for that programme.
Bradford has also been given powers under the Inner Urban Areas Act to enable it to participate more effectively in the economic development of its area. It is one of the areas from which applications for the new urban development grant, aimed at stimulating economic regeneration in urban areas, have been invited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As for advance factories and the programme of the English Industrial Estates Corporation, the EIEC currently has 11 factory units available for occupation in Bradford, ranging from 500 to 2,700 sq ft. These are relevant to small businesses, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. The EIEC plans also to build 45,000 sq ft of advance factory floor space suitable for use by high technology industries. This will form part of a development programme in Bradford for which the Government have allocated £5·2 million to April 1986, including £1·1 million in 1982–83.
Bradford is an intermediate area in regional aid terms and will remain so when many other areas lose their assisted area status in two days' time. This means that selective financial assistance under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 is available to companies which are locating or expanding in Bradford. For example, Microvitec, a manufacturer of television terminals, has been given help that is expected to result in the creation by the company of over 400 jobs by the end of the year. This is only one of many examples. Since May 1979, 67 offers of section 7 selective financial assistance have been made to firms in the area, worth in all £4·3 million. This assistance is expected to help the creation of nearly 2,500 new jobs and the safeguarding of a further 4,000.
This is one illustration of the way in which we attempt to have policies that will assist in the structural change in a local economy, which is so clearly required in the Bradford area. But beyond this regional assistance there is the European regional development fund and the European Investment Bank facilities, which come with intermediate area status and will still be available to Bradford.
Beyond the regional assistance, firms in Bradford have benefited from the national schemes. There are many Department of Employment schemes which it would not be right for me to mention because I do not have departmental responsibilities in that area. However, since May 1979 there have been 39 offers of assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act. That is national selective assistance as distinct from the section 7 regional selective assistance. That is valued at £0·7 million for projects

worth £4·7 million in the Bradford area. To the end of last year 15 firms in the Bradford travel-to-work area applied for product and process development scheme assistance, resulting in offers totalling £214,000 being made. Four firms were offered microprocessor application project assistance valued at £272,000, and 30 applications have been received under the MAPCON scheme.
I give these figures because they illustrate the importance of assisting firms to move into the new high technologies and because there is still a great lack of awareness among industries of the potential availability of assistance under these schemes. That is sometimes because there has been so much concentration on the regionally oriented development grants and schemes that national schemes have been overlooked. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will do all that he can to bring those schemes to the attention of companies in the area.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also talked about the importance of small firms. He will know that the Government have introduced a wide battery of schemes, including the pilot loan guarantee scheme and the business start-up scheme. I accept—

Mr. Prescott: There have been more bankruptcies.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is not up to date. In 1981 many more small firms started up than went into liquidation.

Mr. Prescott: There are a thousand empty factories.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been describing the background and I am trying to deal constructively with the problems of Bradford.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister cannot deal with them.

Mr. MacGregor: I accept that, when larger international companies get into such difficulties, it has an impact on small firms. However, the encouragement that the Government are giving for the expansion of small firms and the start-up of businesses is an important ingredient in the creation of a wider, different and more modern economic base. The concentration of measures in that area will, over some time—there is bound to be a transitional period while structural changes take place—make a substantial difference.
I examined carefully what the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party mean by small firms policies. It is significant that all that they are saying is that the Government are on the right track but that they wish to have more.
I turn to the hon. and learned Gentleman's prescriptions for what should be done. The most striking thing was the emphasis that he placed on the need for lower interest rates and lower inflation. I entirely agree with that, and the vast majority of firms regard it as the key priority. The reason why we do not hear much now about the impact of inflation on businesses is that it has reduced substantially and the reason why industry is not giving sc much attention to interest rates is that it agrees with the Government's policy.

Mr. Prescott: Industry totally disagrees with the Government's policy.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. and learned Gentleman called for lower interest rates and lower inflation and then advanced an enormous list of measures that would have


precisely the reverse effect, because they would all require greatly increased Government spending and a much higher public sector borrowing requirement. That would undoubtedly mean a sharp and immediate increase in interest rates and an upward spiralling of inflation.
The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the need to abolish the national insurance surcharge. He will know that, as from next month, the 1½ per cent. reduction for this year will come into operation, which will make a substantial difference to the cash flows of companies. But to ask now for a complete abolition would have required more than £2 billion that could come only from higher taxation—which would have an effect on the consumer market—or through higher Government borrowing, which would have the immediate effect of increasing interest rates again.
The hon. and learned Gentleman called for a reduction in the male pensionable age. He will know of the larger programmes on the job release scheme that go some way to meet that for which he asked, especially as they are linked with replacement by someone from the unemployment register. But to call for a reduction now would also require large increases in Government expenditure—from memory, the figure is £2½ billion—that would come on top of what he has already asked for on the national insurance surcharge.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I thought that I had made it clear that I was saying that all the measures that I had suggested did not have to be brought in simultaneously. I suggested that the Government looked at them, brought in some of them, and some of them were not all that expensive in net terms as they take people off the unemployment register. I am not suggesting that the Government can do everything at once—no Government have ever been able to do that.

Mr. MacGregor: That is fair, but the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to have it both ways by suggesting that we should continue to aim for lower interest rates, and then gave a list that gave the impression that these were the things that he would like to see done quickly. He included the abolition of national insurance surcharge and the reduction in the male pension age. I have just explained how extremely expensive these would be
One of the hon. and learned Gentleman's other points was about a job-sharing scheme. He will know of the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment made on the scheme that he is introducing and which, if it succeeds, will have the effect that the hon. and learned Gentleman describes of not having any net increase in Government expenditure.
The hon. and learned Gentleman called for a substantial increase in the capital programme. That gives the impression that he would like to see a substantial increase across a wide range soon. He again ignored the fact that in a number of parts of the nationalised industries there has been a substantial increase in capital expenditure programmes in real terms this year. It is easy to go on demanding more and more, but it is a question of getting the priorities right and balancing the amount of extra expenditure that can be incurred on the capital programmes. I should like to see more on capital rather than on current. That is the importance, therefore, of all that we are trying to do to contain current expenditure in

central Government. It is a question of balancing this against the other economic objectives that he has already shown that he shares.
The hon. and learned Gentleman called for a further Government stimulus to the economy through capital programmes and in other ways. He should reflect that during the period 1970–80 there was substantial stimulus from Governments in one way or another, especially through an increase in the money supply that was injected into the economy. The net effect of that was that we saw little real increase in production, much higher inflation and a great decrease in our competitiveness. All these things should give the hon. and learned Gentleman pause to think that the programmes that the Government are now pursuing to improve the competitiveness of British industry are the correct ones.
The hon. and learned Gentleman called for a financial inducement for youngsters to stay on beyond 16 and he will know of the extra expenditure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has introduced for this year to assist in that. He will know of the new training initiative on which considerable sums of additional public expenditure are being spent.
So often, one of the problems of recent years has been that the starting levels of young people's wages have been too high for employers to employ them. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Continent in this regard, which is relevant. That is the significance of the young workers scheme, which has been in existence for almost half a year now, and which has had a substantial take-up.
The hon. and learned Gentleman called for the expansion of the community enterprise programme, and went on, calling for the expansion of more and more, and much of what we are already doing. He has to take into account that the major priority of getting the inflation rate down is still the key one that British industry wants us to pursue.
Finally, the hon. and learned Gentleman called for a dynamic and powerful economic strategy. Those are fine words, but when one actually looked at his list of measures, so many were the tried and failed policies of the Labour Government to whom he gave his support. He talked about greater expenditure for the British technology group. He should look at the record of the National Enterprise Board during his years in Government. The economic strategy committee that he suggested reminded me of the old Department of Economic Affairs in 1965 which produced a great blueprint that was not followed.
Many of the prescriptions that the hon. and learned Gentleman called for are either more and more of the same, or much higher Government spending on more of the failed Government strategies of the past.
I listened carefully to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, but I did not think that there was much in it that bit on the problem that I began with—the problem that the three factors to which he referred, international competition, technological change and change in markets, are the factors that have caused the loss in jobs.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government are very aware of and concerned about the industrial situation in Bradford and understand what is happening there, but the combination of nationally available policies towards industry and Bradford's status as an intermediate area means that a whole battery of measures is available to encourage industrial development there. I accept that it


will take time, but I believe that the strategies that we are pursuing are the right way to bring about that industrial restructuring.

Orders of the Day — Health and Safety at Work

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on health and safety at work, especially as nurses are demonstrating outside Parliament, until we shut up shop, for a decent living wage and the recognition of their contribution, not only to industrial health but to the general health of the country.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that nurses from the Hull general hospital have been demonstrating outside the Palace of Westminster throughout the night, and their demonstration will continue until 5 o'clock? I am delighted to see representatives of those nurses sitting in the Strangers Gallery observing our proceedings on the important issue of health and safety at work. The essential background to that issue is the nursing services that are provided by nurses such as those from the Hull general hospital.

Mr. Cryer: My right hon. Friend is quite right. It is regrettable that nurses and other health workers are being forced by this heartless Government into taking that action to demonstrate their value to the community.
I want to know what the Government are doing about health and safety at work. The Government have never given time to this important subject. The only occasion on which it was discussed was in an Adjournment debate that I initiated several months ago. Of course, the Government are prepared to devote hours and hours of parliamentary time to attacking the unions. We have had two major Bills legally to enslave them and attack their funds. However, the Minister will know that in most years more days are lost through industrial injury than through strike action. Nevertheless, the Government have done nothing to improve legislation on industrial injury, to which I shall come in a moment.
Let me give some figures. In 1976, 15 million days were lost through industrial injury in estimated days of certificated incapacity. That figure did not include, for example, people who suffer from pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, or occupational deafness, and people who are out of work for more than six months who claim industrial disablement benefit. Therefore, the people who are injured at work over a long term are not included in the figure of 15 million. The figure for days lost through industrial disputes was 3,284,000. In 1977, 15·7 million days were lost in certificated incapacity, and 10,142,000 in industrial disputes. In 1979, in the winter of discontent, 29 million days were lost in industrial disputes, and 13·1 million days through certificated incapacity. The Library could not provide me with the figure for 1980 of estimated days of certificated incapacity, but 11,964,000 days were lost in industrial disputes. My guess is that more days will be lost through certificated incapacity. That does not include people who are off work for the odd day or two because of minor injury.
Therefore, it is fair to say that each year the number of days lost through industrial injury far exceeds the number of days lost through strike action. Nevertheless, the Government are cutting back expenditure on the Health and Safety Commission. That means, of course, that stiff are also facing the squeeze.
Criticisms can be made of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. The


administration is cumbersome, and, in some cases, it has been ineffective. It has been reorganised once against the wishes of the factory inspectorate and a re-reorganisation is currently being considered by the administration which runs the executive and which administers rather than inspects.
Signs of the cumbersome nature of the administration have already been brought to Parliament's attention, but, nothing has been done. With regard to warrants, a key area of the expression of the power of inspectors, the executive has issued general warrants for inspectors, contrary to section 19(2) and (3) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which specifically provides:
Every appointment of a person as an inspector under this section shall be made by an instrument in writing specifying which of the powers conferred on inspectors by the relevant statutory provisions are to be exercisable by the person appointed".
That means that any inspector can grant exemptions in a specific area where there are powers and regulations to do so. For example, an agriculture inspector can grant exemptions from a mines and quarries regulation. That has been accepted in evidence to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The evidence in the report of February 1980 states that
in theory any inspector could grant an exemption. In practice we have administrative arrangements that certain people can grant exemptions for certain things.
I should like to remind the Minister that the Act laid down requirements that the executive and the commission do not have the right to flout Parliament. Where Parliament says that an inspector's warrant shall state the specific powers, that should be carried out.
On 25 March 1980, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew Parliament's attention to the fact that
The Committee learn from the Department of Energy's Explanatory Memorandum … that such instruments of appointment do not specify or distinguish powers of the kind purportedly granted by Article 15 of each of these Regulations, and that only 'administrative arrangements' govern the exercise of such powers.
Therefore, the Committee concluded that the application of the powers in such a way was ultra vires. That is important because it reflects the way that administrative convenience is put before the specific operation of the legislation. That is reflected in other areas of activity.
There is extreme tardiness in producing proposals for legislation. On the question of lifting heavy weights, for example, in September 1976 the chairman promised me that guide notes for inspectors about the lifting of heavy weights would be produced by Christmas 1976 and a statutory instrument by 1977. That was five years ago.
I have promoted two Ten-Minute Bills to place a limit on weights lifted manually. For example, in agriculture the limit is 180 lbs and in textiles it is 120 lbs for adult males. There is no differentiation according to the age or fitness of those adult males. In addition, it inhibits a person's right to claim industrial injury benefit in the courts if he is faced by a statutory instrument which lays down a weight limit that is as high as the agriculture weight limit. That means that a person who works in agriculture and who injures his back is inhibited in that way.
Nothing has been done since 1977. There has been an impasse on the commission between the TUC and the CBI.

There have been two working parties, and the second working party has produced a consultative document at long last within the past few weeks. That begins by saying:
The number of accidents associated with manual lifting and handling has been a matter of concern to responsible bodies for a period of many years.
They are dead right. It has been a matter of concern for many years. The Health and Safety Commission and the Minister have been significantly lethargic about bringing something before Parliament to remedy the matter.
I quote again:
There has been a dramatic increase in the past twenty years of reported injuries from manual handling in premises subject to the Factories Act 1961 from 40,000 to more than 70,000 per year. Hence the necessity for a new approach to manual handling.
On the commission's own figures a significant proportion of the 350,000 back injuries could have been avoided if the guides and regulations had been introduced several years ago. The consultative document is good and the proposals have much merit. I merely complain that it has taken far too long to bring them forward. The commission has reached an impasse. Because of the commission's construction, a consensus is always sought. That is not the best way of legislating to prevent industrial injuries.
Therefore, the Minister should consider something that existed prior to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Where there is an impasse, an independent chairman should be appointed to institute an inquiry and to make recommendations to the Minister independently of the Health and Safety Commission. As a result of such facilities, the woodworking regulations 1970 were introduced, which had previously been the subject of delay. Such a system was proposed during debate on the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill 1974, but the amendment was rejected. The value of the machinery has been demonstrated. It might well have been a means of resolving the handling of heavy weights.
Slowness and indifference can cause difficulties, as can confused codes of practice that are not clearly linked to statutory requirements. When connected with asbestos, slowness and indifference turn into a crime. In 1975 and 1976 the former Member for Sowerby, Mr. Madden, took up the cause of asbestosis victims at Acre Mill, Hebden Bridge. It was owned by a firm called Cape Asbestos and became, for a while, renowned throughout the country. At the time, there was slipshod supervision on the part of the Factory Inspectorate and Max Madden obtained an investigation by the Ombudsman. As a result, the then Secretary of State for Employment, now the Leader of the Opposition, established an advisory committee on asbestos, which was chaired by the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission.
The committee reported in November 1979. There were two earlier reports on thermal and acoustic insulation and the measurement and monitoring of asbestos in the air. In all, 41 recommendations were made. The General and Municipal Workers Union said that the report was not stringent enough, but it made 41 recommendations and if they had been implemented a significant step would at least have been taken along the road towards combating the dangers of asbestos. Before the Minister answered my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), I asked the Library how the 41 recommendations made in 1979 had fared. The reply was as follows:


Your enquiry about the report of the Advisory Committee on Asbestos of 1979 has come to me for reply.
As you noted, 41 recommendations were made. I have spoken to that section of the Health and Safety Executive which deals with hazardous materials and they tell me that none of these has yet been formally implemented. However, a great deal of work has been carried out leading, it is hoped, to eventual implementation. Ultimately, of course, ministerial sanction will be required for this to be done. Negotiations simultaneously on two draft EEC directives seemed to have introduced some delay into the process.
I emphasise those last few words.
No doubt documents will be circulated and there will be many meetings about the wording of the regulations and whether one country will be satisfied with the views of another. Meanwhile, the toll of injury goes on month by month. It is astounding that over two years after the publication of a report by a serious committee, who examined the matter for three years, not one of the 41 recommendations has been formally implemented. Preparatory work has been done, but that does not affect the people who go into the factories every morning, or give them the rights that they should have.
It is almost unbelievable that anybody should allow EEC procrastination to prevent regulations from being implemented. Good God, we have a Parliament; we do not have to stand around and wait for the EEC to make up its mind. We could introduce regulations and change them if the EEC ones were better. I do not know whether that idea seems revolutionary now that we are in the Common Market, but I should have thought that it showed a certain amount of common sense and would have benefited those people who go into the factories every morning and want to see some improvement in their lives.
I do not often praise the media, but we are indebted to Yorkshire Television, John Willis the producer and the workers who made the programme "Alice, the fight for life". We are indebted to the late Alice Jefferson who contracted mesotheliomas—cancer of the lungs—from asbestos contact 30 years ago. She is not somebody we could have helped by the new regulations.
The debate and the television programme are a valedictory acknowledgement of Alice Jefferson's guts in fighting the disease that ended her life after working for nine months in an asbestos factory. It took Yorkshire Television to make a programme and produce the information that made people say "Look out, asbestos is a dangerous material. What happens to our bodies when they come into contact with this material?" It was not the Government, the employment medical advisory service or any other part of the Government machinery that provided the information. The General and Municipal Workers Union has been nagging away at the problem for a long time, but it took an important television programme to bring it to public notice.
A number of interesting points were made in the programme and I am grateful to the producer for sending me a transcript. Turner and Newall was quoted as saying before the programme that this year:
Much of the steam has gone out of the anti-asbestos lobby and there is not that much concern in the United Kingdom.
Another asbestos boss in the same year said:
Now that the health scare is over profits should rise again.
There was no reason why Turner and Newall should not rest content. The Government were attacking trade unions, like the General and Municipal Workers Union, which were arguing for better compensation terms and working conditions, proper scrutiny, and proper licensing for

laggers to cut out the cowboys who, according to the Prime Minister, are the free enterprise entrepreneurs who make a profit out of death and injury. That is a pretty rich reward for the £40,000 that Turner and Newall has contributed in the past three years to the Conservative Party.
British Belting and Asbestos at Cleckheaton gave the Conservative Party £11,500. It is interesting to refect upon how it treated a Labour Party representative. While I was a Minister at the Department of Industry I opened a mill at Morley which had been converted from an old woollen mill. The mayor of Leeds went round at the same time and said that it would be a good idea for a representative of the Labour Government to visit British Belting and Asbestos at Cleckheaton because it had had only a Tory around previously and the workers would like to see a Government representative. My private office got in touch with the firm. It knew that I had raised questions about asbestos when I was on the Back Benches. It did not lay out the carpet but said that I would be accepted only if I undertook not to criticise the factory. I rejected the condition and the visit never took place.
Turner and Newall has an annual turnover of over £600 million. On the Yorkshire Television programme it stood convicted of withholding evidence from the Simpson inquiry, the major inquiry that took place between 1976 and 1979. Four pages were removed which showed that it had breached the law. The supposedly safe Fortex process breaches even the existing legal limits which are not all that stringent.
The programme made it clear that Turner's claim in 1978 that
deaths from lung cancer do not differ significantly from the national average
was untrue. The lung cancer rate at that time among the workers was almost twice the national average and rising. Turners had failed to tell the workers of the dangers of working with asbestos. We are talking of white and not blue asbestos.
Workers were interviewed on the programme and asked whether they knew of the dangers. They made it clear that Turners had not informed them of the dangers, although the firm claims that it provided the information.
A worker stated:
We've all got to go sometime. It's just that I know I'm going to go sooner than I should be going. I'm not afraid of it. But the knowledge is there, that you're going to go before your time, through no fault of your own. I feel very bitter about it because, if they'd told me of the dangers, I wouldn't be in the position I'm in. Really and truly, they should have told me. They knew.
That is taken from a programme broadcast in 1974, and it is about a man who died in 1973. The same problem is rearing its head again. Workers have a right to know about the conditions in their factory.
Recommendation 28 of the 41 recommendations of the asbestos committee is that there should be a medical scheme with the following features:
employers legally required to inform the organisation of anyone currently in or entering employment where precautionary measures have to be taken regularly to ensure compliance with the asbestos regulations and to provide facilities for him to be medically examined".
The recommendation enshrines the concept of the right to know.
Questions were raised in 1973 and 1974 and nothing has been done. It is scandalous that workers do not have a statutory right to know what is happening.
Eternet, near Cambridge, was also mentioned in the programme. That and other firms were shown to be ignorant or deceitful, or both.
Turner and Newall is a regular contributor to the Tory Party, paying £40,000 over three years, yet when Alice Jefferson sought compensation it offered only £13,600. That generous employer forced her to crawl to Leeds Crown court to get the decent sum of £36,000. She was so ill that she had to be helped in and out of court. Turner and Newall treats its workers with contempt.
On the programme a doctor from the West Riding claimed that malignant diseases of the chest were in epidemic proportions. The programme also pointed out that:
By 1969 the British government felt it essential to introduce new regulations. But in fixing so-called 'safe' dust levels they took absolutely no account of the cancer-risks, even though research shows cancer can be sparked off by relatively small quantities of asbestos. The same year—1969—the asbestos companies predicted that the mesothelioma cancer rate has reached the crest of a wave, which will decline in the next decade.
In fact, a decade later mesothelioma cancer deaths had more than trebled, rising by 330 per cent. The 1969 regulations are still operative without change today.
Dr. Selikoff of the New York hospital that specialises in cancer research related to asbestos said:
laggers I think in Britain have been followed by us for about the last 20 years. Their experience has been extraordinary. For example, men who were 30 or 35 years from onset of their work, about 40 per cent. of them die of one or other form of cancer—mesotheliomas, that is a cancer of the lining of the chest, the lining of the abdomen, lung cancer, cancer of the oesophagus, the stomach, the colon, the rectum, cancer of the mouth, the tongue, the larynx, the kidney, we followed 17,800 laggers from 1967 through 1976, there were 2,271 deaths among them instead of the 1,660 we expected, given their ages in 1967.
Of these—1 out of every 5 men died from lung cancer. It was simply a disaster.
When the workers die, their relatives often have difficulty getting compensation. Doctors sometimes fail to put "asbestosis" on the death certificate and workers are kept in ignorance of the true dangers. The 1979 inquiry was also kept in ignorance of the true dangers.
Turners claimed, for example, to the asbestos inquiry that of 48 cases of mesothelioma
none of these could be described as cases of slight exposure.
Margaret Chrimes worked there as a telephonist. Emma Marshall was the firm's office cleaner. They both died of the asbestos cancer mesothelioma.
Turners told the asbestos inquiry in 1977 that the prevalence of asbestos disease in its British factories was no more than one in 300, yet Dr. Geoffrey Morris, then the company's chief medical officer and former lecturer in public health at Bristol university, was within a few months of concluding that the definite or strongly suspected cases of asbestosis at Turners biggest factory in Rochdale, far from being one in 300, was more than one in four.
I shall consider some of the recommendations of the 1979 committee. Recommendation 23 states:
The requirement to provide protective clothing and respiratory protective equipment should be explicitly stated in the regulations and extended to include any workers whose person or personal clothing is liable to be significantly contaminated with asbestos dust.

I remember in 1978 or 1979 that laggers at the Isle of Grain power station had to go on strike to get protective clothing. The workers caused a nuisance simply because they wanted protective clothing.
Recommendation 34 states:
When the government's monitoring programme on asbestos in the general atmosphere is complete, the data should be assessed by the appropriate public bodies in the light of the medical evidence to determine whether any general limit on asbestos concentration in non-occupational environments is needed.
Recommendation 36 states:
Raw asbestos fibre and other loads liable to give rise to asbestos dust should be transported in such a way as to prevent the escape of asbestos dust.
Recommendation 35 states:
A new legal obligation should be introduced so that by 1 December 1980 no raw asbestos may be imported to the UK unless it is shipped in totally enclosed metal-clad non-ventilated ISO general purpose freight containers.
Recommendation 40 states:
All the existing legislation, regulations, codes of practice and guidance notes relating to asbestos should be brought together in one publication.
Recommendation 41 states:
Relevant legislation should be examined with a view to reducing the statutory limitations on the disclosure of information relating to asbestos.
Recommendation 38 states:
If experience shows that voluntary compliance with the present labelling scheme for consumer products containing asbestos is inadequate, it should be made obligatory by appropriate regulations.
Those are good and useful suggestions which should have been implemented. However, according to the Minister in his reply to my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South the committee
reported in 1979, making far-reaching recommendations for new controls which the Government intend to implement alongside the two directives on asbestos currently under discussion".—[Official Report, 27 July 1982; Vol 28, c. 453.]
That has yet to be carried out. The Government must have information about the dangers from the Ministry of Defence, because it is heavily involved in repair and maintenance and the commissioning of new ships that make extensive use of asbestos in soundproofing and insulation.
The 1979 report is by no means perfect. It needs to be strengthened and there needs to be more medical supervision of workers, but the Government increased the fees for the employment medical advisory service examination by 540 per cent. in 1979 and a further 247 per cent. in 1981. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments reported on 14 April 1981:
It seems to the Committee that a consequence of allowing `appointed doctors' to carry out the work of employment medical advisers will be further to increase the costs of the Health and Safety Executive and this will lead to an erosion of the Employment Medical Advisory Service. That possibility was confirmed in evidence given to the Committee.
The very organisation that can provide a service in this area is being eroded by the Government and the increase in fees will not induce employers to use the EMAS services.
If the Minister says that an appointed doctor can be used, I say that company doctors do not shine as examples of objective assessors of the dangers of asbestos. The EMAS is being eroded, but we can ask what advice it has given the Minister about asbestos. The service has a duty under section 55 of the 1974 Act to keep the Minister adequately advised about safeguarding and improving the health of employed persons.
Should not EMAS hold its own inquiry into Yorkshire Television's findings? Will the Minister tell us when the 41 recommendations are to be implemented? We do not want to be told that it will be at some vague date in the future when the EEC discussions are completed. Why does the Minister refuse to supplement the 1979 report? Is it simply callous indifference or inertia?
It is not enough to argue that all the cases contracted the disease after contact with asbestos some time ago. It was stated in the YTV programme:
So even in modern conditions, working at Turners could be dangerous. Donald Robinson has worked in several departments, but mainly in Fortex.
—that is the new, less dangerous process, according to Turners.
He thought that in modern times working at Turners was quite safe. Last year Donald, who is married with four children, was told he had the asbestos cancer mesothelioma. Donald Robinson is aged 39.
It is a modern, contemporary, current danger. That is why it is important that the 1979 report should be supplemented with an inquiry into the YTV findings. Because the Minister has refused a formal inquiry, the General and Municipal Workers Union has announced that it will hold its own inquiry. That should not be necessary. The Government should institute the inquiry as a matter of urgency.
The Government also ought to tell us how many improvement and prohibition notices have been issued over the past two years. Has the factory inspectorate been diligent in that? Will the Government increase the fines, which are pathetic? In 1980, 18 informations were laid and 16 convictions were obtained, resulting in an average fine of £244. In 1979 there were 12 informations, seven convictions and an average fine of £54.
The evidence collected by Yorkshire Television shows that more Alices may well be at risk today. The young men and women working with asbestos today may be the Alices of tomorrow, in 20 or 30 years. We have a duty as a nation to check every possible fact and provide every possible safeguard to prevent those sad words of the late Alice Jefferson from ever coming true again and ensure that such a tragedy never happens again because of the dangers of asbestos. She said in the programme, when she was told that she was going to die:
I says 'How long have I got then?, and she says 'Three to six months' and when you think that and that it's just the result of working, you know, for a paid wage, for a job that we didn't think was dangerous; it never entered your head it was dangerous. Makes me feel right bitter, because I know I'm 47'".
That is a quotation from a moving documentary about people whose lives have been and are being prejudiced. This country loses more lives each year through asbestos, according to the General and Municipal Workers Union, than we lost in the Falklands crisis. The Government poured massive resources into dealing with the Falklands crisis. They should pour massive resources into putting into effect the 41 recommendations, into getting EMAS to sift the evidence, and setting up a new inquiry, so that we can claim that we are free from the dangers of asbestos. If there is no freedom from the dangers of asbestos as long as it is present, we must have a major initiative now, urgently, to substitute other materials for it so that we can eradicate the danger once and for all. If we do that we shall be remembering Alice Jefferson for having made a massive contribution, together with all the other people who contributed to the programme, to getting rid of a grave danger.

Miss Jo Richardson: I am glad to join my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) in this debate about health and safety at work. He illustrated, particularly at the beginning of his speech, his considerable expertise in the matter of health and safety. I well recall the positive contribution that he made at the time of the passage of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
At the beginning of his speech my hon. Friend quoted figures and made criticisms, quite properly, of the lack of cutting edge of the Health and Safety Executive and the problems facing health and safety inspectors. Although I am less expert than my hon. Friend, I have discovered that the inspectors are overworked, because their numbers have been reduced. They are now expected to cover a far bigger area, which means that they can make only a cursory check instead of a more thorough check. This cut by the Government affects many people.
My hon. Friend principally highlighted the whole question of the dangers of asbestosis and all the problems associated with the asbestos industry. I did not see the television film to which he referred and to which there has been much reference in the newspapers—"Alice—A Fight for Life"—but I can tell him that cases like Alice's are multiplied all over the country. She did a great service in allowing her tragedy to be exposed to the public. Families of victims watched that programme and relived the nightmare of seeing one of their loved ones die of the same disease. There are families like that in my constituency of Barking.
Cape Asbestos used to have a factory in my constituency, and still has an office there. The company moved some years ago to Hebden Bridge—the constituency of my old friend and colleague, Max Madden, who did such a good job in taking the case to the Ombudsman. It is a commonly held saying in Barking even today, although it is a long time since Cape left, that almost everyone in the town knows someone or knows someone who is related to somebody who suffered from asbestosis. It has only to be mentioned in the town and everyone remembers the tragedies of those days. It is still with us.
Since I have been the Member of Parliament for Barking, I have been in contact with many families who have asbestos victims who have had to ask for my help to get compensation from their employers, whether it be Cape or other firms that use asbestos. I have also been involved in fights with the Department of Health and Social Security about industrial injury benefit. There is so little information about asbestosis that the process is incomprehensible to the ordinary person. I find it extremely difficult to follow an industrial injury benefit case and to make some sense out of it when it is connected with asbestosis.
I shall refer to a tragic case that I was recently involved with. A gentleman who, quite naturally, was extremely emotional because his wife was suffering from asbestosis, came to see me. He did not expect her to live more than a few months. She did not know that she had the disease. She knew that there was something wrong with her breathing and was in great discomfort all the time. The hospital had told him that she must never know that they believed that she had asbestosis because the strain of knowing would make her worse and accelerate her death.
The gentleman needed to apply for benefit on her behalf but she could not sign the form. With the help of the DHSS, I helped the gentleman to fill the form in and he signed it for her. That is unusual, but the Department accepted it. We then came to a great obstacle. The Department was prepared to accept that the form could be filled in on her behalf because she was not to know about it, but it had to send two DHSS doctors to examine her, whereupon, of course, she would know that there was something seriously wrong with her. It so happened that we never got to that stage because she died. Matters like that which hassle families and people's loved ones should be eliminated as much as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley talked a great deal about that advisory committee on asbestos. He referred to several of the important recommendations that it made in its last report in 1979. He rightly said that they have not been implemented and that the 1969 regulations are the ones that stand. The 1969 regulations give workers a one in 10 chance of dying of an asbestos-related disease because of the level of fibres in the air to which workers can be exposed. One of the committee's recommendations was that the number of fibres in the air to which workers could be exposed should be reduced. That might have quickly prevented some deaths.
There have been other important proposals which have not been implemented. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said, there were then two EEC directives. He was right to point out that the whole matter has got bogged down. The Health and Safety Executive does not seem to have got its final report recommendations implemented and the EEC directives do not seem to have come into effect. I gather that they are bogged down because the differences between the various European standards have to be resolved first. Apparently, as we have not been able to do that we cannot implement the directives.
Further consultation is taking place. As the Minister knows, in March 1981 the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities produced a report on the directives about asbestos and strongly supported the measures contained in them. I do not know whether the report has been debated in the House of Lords, but certainly nothing has been done about it.
So the story continues and so, year by year, the reports on the health hazards of asbestos grow. In March this year The British Journal of Industrial Medicine published a report on the findings of B. K. Wignall of St. George's hospital and A.J. Fox of the City University showing that women workers exposed to asbestos may run a higher than normal risk of developing cancer of the ovary. A survey of 500 women who worked in a Nottingham gas mask factory during the Second World War putting asbestos filters into masks showed that by 1978 five had died of cancer of the ovary when statistically fewer than three deaths would have been expected.
This was a real surprise, so the two researchers went deeper into the matter. They studied the data, traced a number of the workers who were still around and examined old factory records. They found that not all of the 500 workers had actually been exposed to asbestos as some had simply been stitching on masks and had not been in contact with the asbestos, but the five deaths had been

among the group of women actually handling the asbestos. Here, then, is perhaps another fatal disease to be added to the long list of illnesses caused by asbestos.
People living in Whiting Avenue in my constituency had a terrible shock three or four years ago when one of them, digging fairly deeply in his garden, discovered a vein of blue asbestos. he was absolutely horrified as neither he nor anyone else in the street had realised that the whole estate was built on top of a store of asbestos left behind by Cape Asbestos. I do not say that it had been deliberately concealed, but it had been buried. The council had then acquired the property and built an estate on it unaware of the presence of the asbestos. As a result, the council and the residents were in considerable difficulty for a long time until the asbestos could be safely covered up and in many cases removed.
I emphasise especially the problem of disposal. What does one do with the asbestos waste when one has taken it out? What will happen to the domestic asbestos waste that is now appearing all over the country as a result of the film about asbestos shown by Yorkshire Television which has rightly shocked and angered people into finding out how much asbestos is in their homes and chucking it out. People are tearing down panels and throwing the asbestos into the dustbin and local environmental health officers are at their wits end to know how to dispose of it because it is dangerous. I hope that the Minister will be able to give councils some advice on what should be done before this goes much further.
Where will all this end? Are we to continue to live with this terrible threat hanging over so many of our people? Are members of the next generation to be allowed to suffer and die in the same tragic way as this generation? If we do not grasp the nettle now, we never shall, and another generation of workers will be exposed to the risk.
An early-day motion now on the Order Paper calls for the setting up of a Select Committee on asbestos. I strongly support the proposal, but we should not have to wait for the findings of a Select Committee. Why are there strikes by workers in asbestos factories? They are generated by the shock and horror of workers who saw the film and who are more frightened than they were. Why are environmental health authorities and departments now inundated with inquiries, many of which they cannot reply to? It should not be necessary for those things to happen. We need action from the Government now to enforce proper protection and safety standards.
I am glad to see in one of the papers that will be on the bookstalls today—I refer to Friday, and not the parliamentary day of Thursday—that the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases is pointing out the risks of white asbestos. SPAID is run by Mrs. Nancy Tate, who is an old friend of mine. I pay tribute to the tremendous work she has done in exposing the dangers of asbestos. She illustrates the risks of white, as distinct from blue, asbestos which has largely been ignored and which has damaged the lungs of between 17 and 20 per cent. of the people at Turner and Newall's works.
I also pay tribute, as did my hon. Friend, to the General and Municipal Workers Union which, in the same newspaper, announces that it is to hold a special inquiry. I am sure that that will be done extremely thoroughly and that the result will be well worth seeing.
Welcome though all those initiatives are, this matter is not the responsibility of those organisations. It is for the


Government to provide adequate protection, advice and information for people who work with these dangerous materials. The Government should be grasping this fearsome problem and positively responding to the genuine and loud public outcry. I hope that the Minister's reply will help people to understand why the Government have been so inactive.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) on raising this important topic. I hope that my remarks will be a useful contribution to the debate.
The hon. Member for Keighley referred to nurses' pay. The Government's record on nurses' pay compares favourably with that of the Labour Government and it does not lie in the hon. Gentleman's mouth to criticise the Government for party political reasons. He knows perfectly well that the offer of 7½ pe cent. for nurses compares favourably with the settlements for the Armed Forces, the civil servants and teachers. He knows that the total amount of money spent on the Health Service has risen in real terms by 5 per cent. since 1979. He knows that to give way to the 12 per cent. pay claim would cost an additional £400 million and that that would mean less money available for buildings, patient care and services to patients. The real subject of the debate is health and safety at work. The hon. Member for Keighley said that the Government had not provided time to debate the matter. The Opposition can choose the topic for debate on Supply days. Not long ago we spent a considerable time debating asbestos when we considered two European directives.
The Government's duty is to be ever-vigilant and to do all that they can to improve health and safety at work. The number of accidents at work has fallen in each year since 1976. From the statistics one must conclude that the Health and Safety Executive has done a good job in improving safety and health in factories. The hon. Gentleman compared the number of days lost through industrial injury with the number of days lost through industrial action. I cannot accept that the fact that fewer days are lost through strikes than through industrial injury is an excuse for failing to bring sanity to our legal framework for industrial relations. That cannot be used as an excuse for failing to protect individuals from the abuse of industrial power. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should use a serious occasion to make such a trivial point.
The hon. Member for Keighley said that the Government had cut back on the work of the Health and Safety Commission. It was inevitable that economies would be made when we came to power in 1979. Compared with other parts of the Department of Employment, the executive has been fairly well protected from the cuts.
The subject of general warrants is a hobby horse of the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot identify any adverse effects of the power to issue general warrants. He says that an agriculture inspector could grant an exemption in relation to mines and quarries. That is interesting, but the hon. Gentleman does not live in the real world because no agriculture inspector has issued such an exemption and there is no intention that he should.
The hon. Gentleman was most ungracious about heavy weights. I should have thought that he would congratulate

the Health and Safety Commission on publishing a consultative document on an involved and difficult problem. The hon. Gentleman argued that perhaps consensus was not the best way, but that was not the thinking of the Committee which considered the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. The thinking behind that Act was that consensus was a great thing to win so that changes acceptable to both sides of industry could be made.
The problem of asbestos is the really important issue. The hon. Gentleman said that the Health and Safety Executive had delayed dealing with the risk of asbestos. First, he talked as if the 1969 asbestos regulations did not exist. He talked as if no legislation was in force. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The hon. Gentleman said that nothing was being done in furtherance of the recommendations made by the Simpson committee. He then corrected himself and said that nothing was being done formally. He was right to add "formally". For example, the Simpson committee recommended a tightening-up of control limits for white asbestos. We do not have legislation requiring one fibre per cubic centimetre, but inspections by the Factory Inspectorate reveal that that is the standard that is being achieved throughout British industry. It is not good enough to talk about no legislation having been passed to implement the proposals of the Simpson committee. The realistic step is to examine the steps that have been taken to diminish the risks.
People are frightened when they are told of the consequences of inaction years ago. It can take 20 or 30 years from the first exposure to the first symptoms appearing. We should be ever vigilant in examining new evidence and assessing whether new risks have been revealed, but it should not be imagined that no progress has been made during 20 or 30 years.
Mention has been made of a public inquiry. I responded to a question recently by saying that I did not intend to set up an inquiry. I must give my reasons for saying that, and I think that they are easy to understand. One of the recommendations of the advisory committee on asbestos was that the advisory committee on toxic substances should review control measures as further information became available. The Health and Safety Executive is able to keep abreast of new research and literature and has experts on its staff. If they are doing their work properly, they can advise the Government on new measures which might be necessary as a result of the products of new research.
I can promise the hon. Gentleman that the HSE will look most carefully into all that was said during the two programmes on Yorkshire Television. It has already taken steps to try to ascertain whether the programme makers have in their hands any evidence that is not already at the disposal of the HSE.
My personal view is that the setting up of an inquiry could delay action. Action is necessary now and action will be taken. On 22 October 1981 the House debated two European directives. I made it plain that our negotiating position in the Community was based on the recommendations of the Simpson committee. I said that we believed that harmonisation would be a great prize and that it was wrong that some countries should have controls more lax than ourselves and thereby enjoy a competitive advantage. I think that many hon. Members recognised the force of that argument.
We were working in Europe to try to persuade other member States to adopt the high standards that we wish to see appertaining in Britain. However, there has been a great deal of delay. It was for that reason that on 20 July the Health and Safety Commission, unaware that on that very night the first of the Yorkshire TV programmes would be shown, decided that some further action should be taken in advance of agreement in Europe. That decision was embodied in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has already replied to the commission saying how much he welcomes the course that it decided to take.
The commission decided that proposals for revised regulations on the licensing of work with asbestos insulation and coating would be brought forward as soon as possible. Hon. Members will know that there is already a code of practice on the subject, in response to an advisory committee report, so it is wrong to say that no action was taken on the report. Furthermore, regulations will be brought forward and will introduce some important prohibitions. There will be a prohibition on the spraying of asbestos, which is acknowledged to be one of the most risky uses. There will be a prohibition on the use of asbestos materials in insulation and there will be a statutory prohibition on the marketing and use of crocidolite. Hon. Members will remember that there has been a voluntary ban on crocidolite since 1970.
At its mext meeting, the commission will consider whether further action should be taken on exposure limits. Hon. Members will recall that the advisory committee on asbestos proposed that the present limit of two fibres per cubic centimetre in the case of chrysotile—white asbestos—should be reduced to one fibre per cubic centimetre, but firms, almost without exception, operate under the one fibre limit so we shall be embodying in legislation that which is already observed.
Some people cry "Ban the lot. Do not use asbestos any more." They call for the use of substitutes. I remind hon. Members that a substitute providing the unique qualities of asbestos might be equally dangerous. I must also remind hon. Members that asbestos has safety uses. One must remember when one talks about the danger to those involved with asbestos at their work that they may be manufacturing something that will save lives, whether it is fire protection material or brake linings. One cannot ignore the social consequences. There are 18,500 people employed in the asbestos industry and they do not wish the industry to close. The Health and Safety Commission, which includes representatives of the TUC, does not believe that such a drastic step could be justified.
The hon. Member for Keighley spoilt his speech by leaving the important point of the debate and indulging in a contemptable attack linking asbestos with a so-called attack on the unions. It may be what we have come to expect of the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that tonight people will believe that we have been debating a matter of the utmost gravity and have not been indulging in filth. I do not challenge the hon. Gentleman's sincerity, but he must not be surprised if others wonder how sincere he is when he mixes up the terrible suffering of people from asbestosis and cancer with a debate about contributions to the Tory Party. I resent it greatly that he should have thought fit to waste the House's time pushing out such filth. He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
The hon. Member then went on to raise another and different matter. The hon. Member may grin, but let him take some punishment himself for a change, instead of uttering disgusting slanders. Let him remember that very often he wastes the time of the House, as he did when he had the impudence to say that a Committee in which he was involved, and members of EMAS who were there, had come to the firm conclusion that their work would be depreciated and interfered with as a result of the increase in fees. I and the hon. Member remember clearly our debates on this subject not long ago. Again it was one of his hobby horses—he alone said that.

Mr. Cryer: I am sure that the Minister regards it as disgusting that Turner and Newell paid more to the Conservative Party than it gave to one of its former employees. He will agree that that is not the sort of priority that he would support. The Minister seems obsessed with attacking me, but all that I did was to quote the report agreed by the Committee, which has the right to make that report. I did not elaborate or say that the Committee had misrepresented the position, I simply quoted evidence that was given to the Committee.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Member is being a little ingenuous, as he was the moving force in the Committee.
The hon. Gentleman went on to deal with the question of fines and quoted the average fines for offences. It is perhaps more relevant to quote the maximum. Magistrates' courts can impose fines of up to £1,000 in the case of summary trial, and the case can be tried on indictment and if that happens, the fine is unlimited. That hardly proves that there are no adequate powers in the hands of the courts. It may be said that it is different if the courts are not using their powers to the extent to which they could.
The hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), in a restrained speech that was all the more impressive for it, highlighted again and again the terrible tragedies that have resulted from the manufacture and use of asbestos. Nobody denies that, and it is important that we should make all the progress that we can to see that nobody working in the industry is exposed to an unacceptable risk.
The advisory committee on asbestos recommended that the number of fibres should be reduced. That is already happening as a result of the vigilance of our inspectors. The hon. Lady raised an important point about hazardous waste. We accept the recommendation of the Gregson committee and are setting up an inspectorate of hazardous waste, which will be there for the specific purpose of advising local authorities as to how they should deal with this difficult problem.
The hon. Lady said that she would like to see the setting up of a Select Committee. That is not for me, but if it were the wish of the House, the Health and Safety Executive would co-operate in every way to help the work of that Committee.

Mr. John Golding: Would it be appropriate to say that the Select Committee on Employment, which has just reported on the commission, has said that at an early date it would be looking at the importance of the Health and Safety legislation, and this will be done early in the new Session?

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the hon. Member for reminding me of that. It seemed rather strange that hon.


Members in an early-day motion should be calling for the setting up of a Select Committee to deal with this matter, when one would have thought that the appropriate Committee was the Employment Committee.
However, that is not a matter for me. What is a matter for me is that I should make it abundantly plain that whatever body of the House decides to investigate these matters, it will have every possible form of help from the Department. I hope that in the light of my remarks, hon. Members will go away a little happier, aware that action is being taken, and conscious of the reasons why decisions were not taken to impose prohibitions—because it was then hoped that there would be harmonisation and a swift passage of the two European directives.

Orders of the Day — Civil Defence

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: May I say at once that I very much regret having cost my hon. and learned Friend some seven hours' sleep, but knowing his active and fertile mind, I am sure that he has put the seven hours to good use. Perhaps during the next Session we shall see the fruits of those seven hours—maybe in more civil defence legislation. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and Harrogate (Mr. Banks) for indicating their intention to participate in this important debate.
It is now almost two years since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his statement on civil defence to the House. He said that the
Government consider that an expanded civil defence programme is both prudent and necessary to achieve an appropriate balance in our defence capability."—[Official Report, 7 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 790.]
The statement continued by announcing various improvements in the civil defence network. The report stressed that much civil defence work should be done at local level, and that the Government proposed to double the amount of money available for that purpose. My right hon. Friend said that he recognised that many county and regional councils at present lacked resources to plan for community involvement in civil defence below district level, but that the Government would make more money available for this purpose. All in all, the total additional cost of the immediate measures that were announced over the three years commencing August 1980 amounted to about £45 million, but despite the good intentions, the situation had not improved to any marked extent.
Civil defence is important in the context of conventional war—and it is worth remembering that all the 140 wars that have been fought since the end of the Second World War were conventional. Civil defence is important in the context of natural disaster, but in the context of nuclear war civil defence is not important; it becomes critical. No one wishes the onset of war, natural catastrophe or disaster, but wishing is not enough. In our daily lives, we insure against disaster and accident. Equally, it is necessary for the Government in the larger context to adopt a similar insurance policy, and part of that insurance policy is civil defence.
However, the situation takes on overtones of tragedy when one realises that not all the funds available have been taken up by local authorities, since it is apparent that some civic leaders and local councils evidently still believe that magic wands exist, and that by declaring nuclear-free zones they will, in some miraculous way, defy the basic elements of wind and fire. Those latter-day Canutes believe that words will defy the bomb. Theirs is the classic posture of the ostrich with its head buried firmly in the sand—and the word "buried" may have more than passing significance.
Perhaps I may refer here to the exercise Hard Rock and its postponement. I served as a local councillor on four authorities over a period of 21 years. I believed that there was a clear relationship between local authorities and central Government. I am appalled to think that certain Labour-controlled local authorities have decided to adopt a policy of non-co-operation with the Government on this exercise—so much so that the exercise has been postponed. That is disgraceful. Local authorities have only


themselves to blame if Government take unto themselves more powers, not only in civil defence but in other respects. Those civic leaders should remember that Japan was also a nuclear-free zone. That certainly did not save it from the full horror of nuclear war. That horror was intensified for the Japanese by their lack of understanding and preparedness for the new style conflict that burst about them.
Civil defence is not a substitute for peace. There can be no substitute for peace. However, there is action that the State should take. After almost 40 years, the United Kingdom level of preparedness is not much greater than that of the Japanese in 1945. A major five-point programme of civil protection is now required.
First, that programme should encompass voluntary recruitment and training—a voluntary programme that includes the Territorial Army, the Red Cross and the other voluntary organisations that do so much in time of crisis. We should introduce training that ensures that the nation has a substantial number of its people prepared, able to lead, take the appropriate action and with the right equipment.
Secondly, a statutory requirement should be laid on local authorities clearly to identify those buildings that may be used by the civil population in time of war—for example, the tunnels, the basements, the underground car parks and even the old factory air raid shelters that still exist. Within my constituency of Rugby the General Electric Co. has a large underground air raid shelter for use in time of emergency.
Thirdly, we should amend building byelaws so that any new building over a certain size should have a basement that may be used as a shelter. That provision is now new. It has existed in Switzerland and elsewhere for many years. What is good enough for the Swiss is surely good enough for the British.
Fourthly, adequate food stocks and medical supplies should be held to ensure survival. Those stocks should be held on a county or borough basis, not regionally or nationally. One must expect some considerable difficulty in moving foodstuffs and other stocks about the country following the onset of war.
Fifthly, and above all, we should seek to educate our people, not by means of a discredited pamphlet but by providing much more detail and guidance. That guidance should be sensible and credible and seen to be of positive assistance in time of crisis. All education is important, but this form of education could be literally a matter of life or death. It should seek to combat what I describe as the doctrine of despair. For example, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are now, and have been for years, prosperous cities. They have recovered from the attack, just as Dresden and Hamburg did.
The reasons for the doctrine of despair are not hard to find. In order actively to promote the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent, a deterrent that has been responsible for 40 years of peace in Europe, it was necessary to underline the appalling and devastating effectiveness of nuclear war. We have all surely lost count of the number of times that we have been told that the survivors would envy the dead, and yet there is a direct analogy that can be drawn between our mental state now and that which existed in 1939.
In 1939 it was seriously argued, and, more to the point, believed, that the bomber would always get through. The

population was convinced that aerial bombardment would level cities and destroy populations with great loss of life. There will be those hon. Members who will say with justification that there is no similarity between conventional bombing and nuclear attack. Those that hold that view should try telling that to those who were lucky enough to survive the firestorms that raged in Dresden, Berlin and Hamburg and the survivors of the massive Tokyo fire raids. What the allied bombers did in Germany and Japan is what we believed would have happened in the United Kingdom in 1939. The saving difference was that the technology in 1939 was simply not equal to that which existed in 1945.
Let me develop that theme. Despite the general and accepted belief that war would result in the destruction of our cities and the death of substantial numbers, the Government did not abdicate their responsibilities; far from it. We developed a massive programme of civil defence called, in the jargon of the time, "Air Raid Precautions". It embraced wardens, home guard, ambulance and fire services—all closely integrated and designed to give the civil population the maximum possible protection against the attack to come. Those precautions were taken to a much greater extent in Germany, and it was that fact that enabled so many to survive the massive allied raids in 1944 and 1945. The great catastrophies occurred where precautions had not been taken, for example in Dresden and Tokyo.
It is the first duty of the State to protect its citizens. It is, therefore, the clear duty of Government to ensure the protection and survival of the maximum number of British people compatible with resources available. I do not seek to equate conventional and nuclear war. Their only point of similarity is the horror and frightfulness of war. Indeed, perhaps to find a true comparison with the effect and aftermath of nuclear war one has to go back 600 years to the time of the Black Death that ravaged Europe and destroyed so many of the population. Again, it is fair to remember that, in time, Europe recovered.
The technology of destruction has always existed, but matching it has been a will to survive and the need and duty to protect one's own people. That will needs to be rekindled and the British people expect the Government to give the lead. It is the character of our race that, when faced by challenge, it is accepted. The Falklands are perhaps a recent and good example of that. There, we did not count the cost, but recognised a clear duty, and that duty was discharged. Hon. Members have a duty to protect their fellow citizens. We should not abdicate that trust or responsibility.
It is noteworthy that nations ranging from the Soviet Union and China to Switzerland and Scandinavia have all made preparations to protect their civil populations. The entire Soviet civil defence programme is in the control of the USSR Council of Ministers, led by a Colonel General A. T. Altunim. In the republics, the organisation of civil defence comes under the chairman of the republic's ministerial Government. Heads of schools, institutions and industry as well as of farms are designated as local defence chiefs. Workers councils combine forces with the Young Communist League to form command brigades and groups to educate and motivate public awareness in all matter pertaining to civil defence and war survival.
Soviet industry has also taken precautions designed to protect a high proportion of its machine tools. Soviet literature describes industrial civil defence exercises and


anticipates a survival rate as high as 80 per cent. However, there is considerably more to the story of Soviet civil defence. There is compulsory civil defence instruction for all, including children. It has much civil defence literature, films, talks, exhibitions and broadcasts which, incidentally, take place throughout the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact countries. It maintains links with the armed forces. It has huge stockpiles of food and large amounts of gas masks, protective clothing and radiation meters available. A vast complex of underground shelters has been constructed for many of the population.
Compare that level of preparedness with what exists within the United Kingdom. Our civil defence is but a pale shadow of what is thought necessary in eastern Europe and elsewhere. As part of the Labour Government's economy drive in 1968 the 340,000 strong civil defence corps and auxiliary fire service were disbanded. Their equipment was sold, dumped or left mouldering in warehouses. Even the civil defence literature disappeared from shelves and bookshops.
There are many reasons for our lack of preparedness. They range from genuine and honest attempts to use scarce resources in what are considered to be more fruitful areas to deliberate attempts by subversive groups to discredit and undermine the nation's will to survive. We should build home defence, not from the top down with all the conventional apparatus of State, regions and counties, but from the bottom up, using parishes in country districts and the block or ward system in towns and cities. They should be the basic building blocks for home defence.
It has been accepted that there can be no major evacuation from the cities. Reception areas have not been designated and no preparations have been made to receive the flood tide of humanity pouring from the cities. People will have to sit tight, but they will do that only if they know that there is a local organisation that can assist and organise in town, city or country. Each grouping must be identified and responsibility contained in that area. Use should be made of the enormous number of volunteers that exist. There is substantial interest shown in this subject. We should be capitalising now on volunteers' enthusiasm. Government should channel that enthusiasm and interest into a positive organisation that is based on the small community, and the small communities should produce their own leaders.
I know that money is short and that the disaster may never happen. There are many people, both inside and outside the House, who will say that it is all a waste of time and effort. But the worst might happen, and if it does may God help a defenceless civil population who are more defenceless now than in 1939.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State is sympathetic to the principle of civil defence. However, he must operate within the severe financial constraints imposed by the Treasury. It is important to remember that our economy is in some difficulty and that the availability of money is genuinely tight. Despite that, two years ago more funds were found, and for the first time since 1968, thanks to the Minister, civil defence is being taken seriously by Government. I and people who think as I do are grateful to him for his efforts. I do not doubt that my hon. and learned Friend will do everything possible to provide the leadership and, if necessary, the legislation for civil defence and a real measure of protection for the civil population.

Mr. Robert Banks: We have come through the watches of the night. Dawn has broken and London is stirring, and we have now come to discuss probably the most important subject that has echoed in the Chamber since we started the debates on the Consolidated Fund. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) on his informative and valuable contribution.
Almost two years ago to the day my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a very important statement. He brought civil defence out of mothballs and gave it credence, which it had not had for many years. He recognised that there were variations in the civil defence arrangements in different parts of the country. He took important and valuable initiatives to encourage local authorities to update civil defence arrangements with Government cash grants. It is with a deep sense of regret that we learn that many local authorities have failed to respond to the grant initiatives. Nine have totally failed to do anything; others have made only a limited response; but yet others have taken action.
It is highly regrettable that only £620,000 of the original £3·3 million made available to build and improve wartime headquarters and other civil defence measures was taken up in 1981–82 by local authorities. The proportion of the further sum of £3·3 million taken up by local authorities for planning and training is, unfortunately, not identifiable. But it means that many opportunities and jobs have been lost and considerable delay has been occasioned in implementing new civil defence measures.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced recently the postponement of exercise "Hard Rock" which was designed to test local authorities' emergency planning skills. The exercise has foundered due to lack of interest. Only 34 out of 54 authorities agreed to take part and seven of those on the basis only of limited participation. I believe that my right hon. Friend was right to postpone the exercise.
The North Yorkshire county council was the only authority in its region to comply with the requirements of the exercise. I praise the authority for its civil defence work. The Harrogate borough council has also taken civil defence initiatives and made decisions to move the present headquarters to more satisfactory premises under the assistance scheme.
The House is familiar with the grave necessity for adequate civil defence capabilities in peace and war. I wish to refer particularly to the role of civil defence as a means of safety in conventional warfare. Before any war became more serious, if it did so, there would be a period of conventional warfare. A lesson that we learnt in the last world war must ring true when we are considering the necessity for civil defence in a conventional situation. It is one of the foundation stones on which national security is built. A defence policy is useless when that which is being defended could be in a state of chaos. Deterrence is of limited credibility when a nation has taken insufficient steps to defend its civilian population.
In this light, and in view of the fact that, with the substantial Government grants now available, the actual burden of costs that falls upon a local authority in maintaining civil defence requirements is minimal compared with that authority's total budget, it can only be


on ideological grounds that those authorities oppose the progress of civil defence or are in wanton ignorance of its importance.
In doing so, they are abdicating the responsibility they have in playing a part in the security of the civilian population. My right hon. Friend said in York recently that he is urgently considering with the Secretary of State for Scotland the amendment to the planning regulations made under the Civil Defence Act 1948. In consideration of the limitations of this Act, which only obliges the local authority to plan for an emergency without making any other provision, I urge him to make the statutory obligation that I believe we all regard as necessary. If much of the vital responsibility for civil defence is to remain devolved in local hands, the authorities concerned will have to be obedient to a higher standard of preparation. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will introduce measures to that effect as soon as possible.
On the occasion of my right hon. Friend's statement in 1980, I put forward the idea that we should have a commissioner for civil defence and that he would have an inspectorate to ensure that local authorities met the standards required of them. I cannot help feeling that that would have been wise then, and I feel that it should have been implemented now. I hope that he will give consideration to this idea.
Many good things have happened in civil defence since the statement in 1980. There has been the start of the main programme for communication, and for modernisation of the warning and monitoring organisation, and the increase in allowances for the Royal Observer Corps. It was doubled immediately after the review and has been raised a further 17 per cent. since. That has brought the strength of the Royal Observer Corps up to its full complement. The new headquarters at Oxford were opened by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister. That was a significant development. We had the refurbishment of the Green Goddesses, which was a necessary and a good thing to do.
But I believe that we need to have better information available for the public to refer to the sort of measures that they may wish to take or that they can be advised they should take to make advance preparation. I am not happy with "Protect and Survive". I hope very much that that publication can be quickly got out of the way and that we can get down to some sensible literature. We have the increase in residential accommodation in home defence college and some 20 extra places for training have been found by the addition to buildings there. This is a valuable step. I hope that, if necessary, if we require additional training places, which can be found in existing buildings, perhaps through the use of universities during the vacation and so on, we can have particular training courses.
I was very pleased when I heard that Sir Leslie Mavor was appointed as the co-ordinator of voluntary help, but I believe that this takes us to the area of volunteers, which needs particular attention. There are many young people who do not have jobs. Here is an opportunity, possibly in conjuction with the Manpower Services Commission, to bring young people in as trainees in civil defence who can be part of the corps of people who will instil enthusiasm in local people in the local area to join up into a community volunteers' corps. We have to come to terms with the fact that volunteers will have to be organised in a special way. In this respect we need to have a full survey of existing

buildings to find out what accommodation is available that could be used. It is the jobs that are available for young people in this area that I think should be made available.
We have, of course, always to remember the existing voluntary organisations. They, I think, have a most valuable and important part to play. They can be co-ordinated within the whole scene through local authorities setting up the right organisation.
Finally, I should like to say something about the film which appeared on BBC1 on Monday evening, called "Armageddon". It showed the effects of a 1 megaton bomb dropped on St Paul's and vividly portrayed the fire, the blast, the devastation and the loss of life.
If any potential enemy were to drop such a bomb on St. Paul's to devastate the whole of inner London, it would be the most ridiculous and stupid act, because they would be trying to win over a heap of ashes in the centre of the capital. The object of any aggressor is to take over a country and to retain its structure and its fine historic buildings. Why, for heaven's sake, would an enemy even consider dropping a bomb on the centre of London and destroying everything that they would need to bring the country together again after the war?
Let us never forget that the same pictures could be applied to Moscow. It is the balance of nuclear power which ensures our survival. I wish that the film could be shown in the Soviet Union so that people there could appreciate what nuclear weapons can do.
I have visited Hiroshima, which is now a thriving modern city. Anyone who saw the television film may find it difficult to believe that although the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was smaller—12½ or 20 kilotons, I think —the city bears no scars. I read a hand-written report of a witness of the bombing of Hiroshima. That person walked through the ruins and gave a vivid description of what happened. The city has risen again.
It would be possible to portray on film an Exocet missile sinking one of our warships and that could be trumped up as an excuse for not having any warships. The people who watched that film could be alarmed by it and it purported to make civil defence appear to be out of the question, but it has an important part to play, particularly in dealing with those on the fringe areas. The film did not point out that if they had civil defence they would survive.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has his heart in civil defence. He is battling against a lack of funds. Those funds must be found and I believe that he is doing everything that he can to bring about a credible civil defence in this country. I applaud his work.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) on his extremely interesting and well-researched speech which I much enjoyed. I also heartily agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) that this is probably the most important of the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
The issue is crucial to the survival of this country and it should be taken extremely seriously. I am more than a little concerned that the only hon. Members who were interested enough to indicate that they wished to speak on the subject were Conservative Members.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): It is always the same.

Mr. Thorne: It calls into question the attitude of Opposition Members and what they see as their responsibility to their constituents.
Civil defence has long been the poor relation of our defence forces. I am pleased that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State is doing all that he can to bring it to prominence. Civil defence was mothballed by a previous Administration and was left there for too long. The matter was not thought through properly at that time. if it had been, we would have appreciated the importance of maintaining an effective method of looking after the civilian population, particularly as it is essential that our front-line forces should have peace of mind when doing battle on our behalf in distant lands.
Those taking part in the conflict in the South Atlantic were able to apply their minds and their entire being much more readily to their task because they were not worried about what was happening to their families at home. If they had been doing battle in Eastern Europe and the civilian population had been under threat of a dreadful nuclear attack, their minds would have been divided between worry for their families at home and what they had to do to attack and defeat the enemy. That it too often forgotten. In any human relationship the man expects to protect and look after his family, and if he is away doing his duty on behalf of his Queen and country other people have to step in and take care of them on his behalf. We must turn our attention in much more detail to looking after the civilian population, and in particular the families of Service people here at home.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby spoke of the need to follow the Swiss in providing adequate shelters in buildings at home. That is important, but the method of construction of buildings in Switzerland is different from the method here. The Swiss have to build deeper foundations, owing to the inclement weather, particularly in the winter. As they are in the centre of the continent, the temperatures drop to a much lower level. Having to build their foundations much deeper, they can take advantage of the opportunity to build underground shelters without adding so much to the cost of construction. Because of our more temperate climate, we do not have to dig our foundations so deep, and there is not the same incentive to put in underground shelters.
The Government must consider this matter, because it is essential that there be adequate cover. One of the biggest areas of complaint is the inadequacy of provision for private individuals. We hear time and time again of various groups that wish us to have no civil defence whatsoever, because they believe that the man in the street will have no provision made for him at all. That is a sad state of affairs, the responsibility for which belongs to all Governments since the 1939–45 war. Immediately after that war a number of buildings in the City of London were designed to incorporate nuclear shelters in their underground car parks. That practice was quite common in the 1950s, but it seems to have died out. There are undoubtedly opportunities available, and the Government should be turning their attention in that direction.
I turn to the attitude of local authorities generally. Far too many are, with one excuse or another, ducking out of their responsibilities, particularly in some of the large conurbations. The Greater London Council's attitude is particularly deplorable in this regard. I understand that it now proposes to throw open to public inspection in the near future the shelter provided for the administration of

civil defence covering my constituency. This is really an attempt to undermine the entire concept of civil defence. I deplore it. I see no reason why the public should not know that provision is made for them in the event of an emergency. However it is foolish to draw people's attention to specific locations for the simple reason that only a few days ago those who are intent upon destroying the State brought barbaric havoc to Hyde Park and Regents Park, right in the centre of London.
Why should we draw attention to the precise location of potential safeguards, inadequate though they may be, that have been provided for the protection of the civilian population so that everyone would know exactly where to hit if they want to destroy the population? It is entirely wrong and typical of those who are at present in charge of the GLC at County Hall.
Even if there is no question of an atomic attack, there is no doubt that civil defence would be required for other possible emergencies. The recent discharge of chemical fumes in Northern Italy is a case in point. Considerable damage was done to the health of the local population. That could have been substantially averted if a full-scale civil defence system had been available. The floods in the West Country of some years ago are another example of where civil defence administration is essential. There is a need for some such organisation, regardless of the potentialities of war.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby mentioned plague and what happened in the Middle Ages. That is another type of natural disaster that can take place without a war and in preparation for which we should make provision for the civilian population. To fail to do so is to utterly ignore a politician's responsibilities to his constituents. I urge the Government to increase expenditure on such provision.
Because local authorities are letting the community down in civil defence matters, the Government should take two courses of action. In the short term, they must look towards a 100 per cent. grant for civil defence expenditure. That does not necessarily entail increased total expenditure. It would be possible to make an appropriate reduction in the rate support grant. It is too essential a matter to be left to the option of local politicians. In times of stringent economies, they cannot be expected to expend their 25 per cent. contribution even on this important matter. We cannot afford to leave the issue to chance.
Ultimately, the Government should consider whether civil defence should be put on a separate basis. I would much prefer that it should follow the same basis as the Territorial Army. I should like the system to be worked out on the basis of the county and through the deputy lieutenants committees, which help with the recruitment of personnel for the TA, and to take over that responsibility. A substantial volume of help and support is available through that source. There are already many people on the deputy lieutenants' roll who would be only too pleased to take on the responsibility for organising civil defence on a local level.
It is, of course, vital that the crucial members of the team include the chief executives of the local authorities concerned, the borough engineers, the health officials, and so on. Nevertheless, I believe that control of this must be taken out of the hands of the locally elected politicians


because this is essentially a Government responsibility, and, unless the Government face up to it, the general population will suffer and we shall be neglecting our duty.
I therefore urge the Government to take this matter most seriously.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): It is the function of debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill to permit Members to raise subjects of particular interest to them or to their constituents and to draw attention to particular matters so that the Government may take on board these important considerations. It follows from that that it is desirable that as many hon. Members as possible should be able to speak in the debates.
Therefore, if I reply at this stage in what may seem an abbreviated or even cursory way, that is not to suggest that I regard my hon. Friends' speeches as deserving no more than that. I shall study carefully what they have said and I hope that they will allow me to reply in writing to some of the points that they have made. I wish to reply in that way simply to allow more Members to take part in the debates.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) on choosing this subject, as it is one of great importance to the safety of this country. He said that the first duty of the State is to protect its citizens. Although we acknowledge this in the case of defence and believe it right to maintain adequate defence services, Armed Services and so on, I often think that we do not give the same importance to the provision of a sensible level of civil defence.
That is why I believe that it was extremely important that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the statement in August 1980 that civil defence was to be revived after the long Cinderella years and outlined steps for the provision, within the level of risk of war that was then and is now perceived, for a sensible and reasonable level of civil defence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby said, it is an insurance policy.
We organise our provision for civil defence on the basis that the local authorities shall be the agents of central Government. Central Government authorises a measure of expenditure and relies upon local authorities to take up the expenditure thus authorised and to protect the citizens within their own areas. I am sorry to say, however, that my hon. Friend is quite right to say that not all the funds have been taken up. It is not widely known that 75 per cent. reimbursement is available for money spent by local authorities on civil defence.
This has led the Government to decide, reluctantly, to postpone exercise Hard Rock because the level of planning for which local authorities were responsible has been so very patchy. As has been pointed out, some 20 local authorities out of 54 declined to take part in the exercise. We therefore believe that specific duties must be imposed upon local authorities in addition to the duty to plan for the matters set out in the regulations. That was the reason for the postponement and for my right hon. Friend's statement.
It is significant that the participants in the debate have all come from the Conservative Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby has a long record of involvement

in civil defence. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) was involved in producing an influential pamphlet when the Conservative Party was in Opposition called "Britain's Home Defence Gamble". My hon. Friend the Minister for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) has a long and distinguished record of service in the Territorial Army. That is symptomatic of the attitude of the Conservative Party towards this important matter. The provision of a reasonable civil defence is an important duty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby spoke of the need for shelter. It is important that local authorities should undertake a survey of the existing available accommodation that could be of use for shelter in the event of hostilities. It is a matter of deep regret that that survey has proceeded at such a slow pace.
Why is it that those countries dedicated to neutrality—the Swiss and the Swedes—none the less attach great importance to the provision of civil defence. They do not regard it as a warlike posture on their part. On the contrary, they do not contribute to membership of the NATO alliance. They have not contributed to the maintenance of peace to the extent that this country has done for the past 35 years. Incidentally, I believe that we have kept the peace for 35 years because we have maintained our position in NATO and the nuclear and conventional deterrents. Those countries can, therefore, afford more for civil defence.
Those who say that civil defence is a fraud on the public—and that is widely said by those opposed to civil defence—must explain why the Swedes, the Swiss and other neutrals attach such importance to it and do so much more than we do.
Two of my hon. Friends referred to a programme recently shown on BBC television called "QED—A Guide to Armageddon". That programme did a service in drawing attention to the horrors of war. War is always horrific. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby said that Dresden and Hamburg were horrific. One can always point to any episode in modern war to show that war is horrific. Therefore, the question is not how horrific is war, or nuclear war, but how we may best avoid it.
If it was right to have drawn, for example, snippets from films taken immediately after the fire storms in Dresden and Hamburg and shown scenes no less horrific than those in the programme on Armageddon, we must ask what is the best way of avoiding such horrors. It is not simply a matter of investigating what would happen if there is a nuclear war. Nuclear war is extremely remote and that is the view of planners in NATO and the experts. Provided this country and the Alliance maintains its deterrent posture, any war is extremely unlikely and nuclear war the least likely. As one of my hon. Friends said, conventional war is much more likely.
However, we must take account of the risk. It is an outside risk, but we have to accept that war may come. How could any Government face their own conscience, let alone the people of the country, if knowing that something could be done and that millions of lives could be saved—for example, from fall-out—they failed to take the simple precautions that could save those lives or failed to encourage local authorities to plan along those lines? That is what the Government's civil defence programme is about. To pretend that it is a fraud is a monstrous deceit upon the country.
I shall write to my hon. Friends about the issues that they have raised. I am grateful to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate spoke about the North Yorkshire county council. He is right; it has done well. It has spent £50,000 on wartime headquarters work and £63,000 additional expenditure has been allocated to civil defence. It has taken its obligations seriously. I am grateful to that authority and many others for what they have done and are doing.
I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said about shelter accommodation and the need for people to be available to help in civil emergencies. Let us not suppose that those recruited for work in civil defence would be used only if there was an attack on the country. What about the aeroplane that comes down in an urban area or the nuclear accident at a power station? What about the enormous casualties that can follow an unexpected civil accident? To shut one's eyes to such possibilities is extremely irresponsible.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby for following up his long record of concern for civil defence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate for continuing to draw our attention to such important matters. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South who has a long record of service in a voluntary capacity of helping in the event of trouble.
Opposition Members have not taken part in the debate and that is a sad reflection on their attitude to the topic. I shall write to my hon. Friends in detail about their contributions, upon which I shall reflect. I hope that it is abundantly clear that the Government take the provision of civil defence extremely seriously. We are heartened by the support shown today.

Orders of the Day — British Telecommunications

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I am grateful to the Minister and other hon. Members who curtailed their remarks to allow me to debate British Telecommuncations. I shall also curtail my remarks. I had hoped for a more relaxed debate, but at least I now have the opportunity before the recess to ask some serious questions about the Government's proposals, which it was not possible to do when the Minister made his statement about the future of British Telecommunications the other day.
I hope that the debate will continue throughout the recess so that we are more clear about the Government's intentions. My right hon. and hon. Friends are not in favour of unnecessary or unjustified changes in the boundaries between the public and private sectors. Therefore, when the Government propose to denationalise one of the major State industries we immediately ask why? Who will benefit? What is the basis of the change? Unless the change can be justified by improvement in services to the customer and unless it is of benefit to the customer and the country, we do not want to know about the proposal.
The way in which the Government are acting makes one sceptical about their objectives and motivation. The speed with which the Government are moving from liberalisation to denationalisation is almost breath-taking. We accept that the industry is moving with enormous speed and that it is, probably more than any other, pushing us all into the end of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century. However, we must ask why the Government are moving with such incredible speed after already having introduced Mercury, moving onwards from liberalisation and adding valuable features to the network.
We have major doubts about the timing that the Government are proposing to adopt for denationalising the telecommunications corporation. The process will straddle the next general election. I fear for the future of this core industry if it is to become the political football that the steel industry became as a result of the debate of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The Government will seek to put their legislation through the House before the general election but will not sell shares in the denationalised corporation until after the election. There is the danger that BT will become a political football, and the course that the Government are proposing will make that danger all the greater. One wonders whether that is the Government's intention. Are they seeking to make the issue of denationalisation a major general election issue? That may interest the doctrinaire denizens of the Opposition and Government Benches, but it will not interest the majority of those working in the industry or the customers. I hope that the Government will think again about the timing that they are proposing and will try to ensure that the future of telecommunications does not become a political football.
There are some major commercial and philosophical arguments over the Government's proposals. They are proposing to remove BT from the stranglehold of Government control and to bring it into the market place. Is that what will be achieved by the action that the Government are proposing? My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are not opposed to bringing the industry, or any other industry, into the world of competition to try to ensure that market forces operate to make it as efficient


and competitive as we possibly can both internationally and in the domestic economy. But is that possible with this industry? Is it possible to have true competition and a real market for telecommunications services?
There is no doubt that the liberalisation measures that have been introduced have provided the pressure of market forces and there have been some welcome results flowing from that, but can there be real competition on the main network? How much of the central telecommunications network will be subject to competition? Is the Minister saying that there will be 50 per cent. of the network under BT's control and that 50 per cent. will be under someone else's control? Are there to be three operators of the network so that there is real competition?
Is it not really the case that the market for telecommunications services, whether BT is in the private sector or the public sector, will be dominated by BT? If that is so we shall have a monopoly; and, if that is in the private sector, how is it to be regulated? The Government's answer is that they intend to set up a director of telecommunications rather like the Director General of Fair Trading.
Will the Government's proposals bring British Telecom out of the frying pan of Government control into the fire of quango control? A new quango is being established by a Government who are opposed to them? Will the control that that body must exercise because of the company's monopoly be any better than having British Telecom as a public sector organisation controlled by the Government? Who will control its prices and access to the market and who will determine how uneconomic services, if they must be provided, should be paid for? Must BT pay for them or will companies such as Mercury, which will plug into the BT network, pay for them through the licence fee? Who will decide what Mercury must pay for access to the network? If a regulatory body is to monitor and control those matters, it will be the alternative to market forces. According to the Government's philosophy, it will arbitrate. Why is it better to have a regulatory body operating in lieu of the market than to have the Government controlling BT as they do today?
Individuals cannot invest money in BT if it is a limited company in the same way as one would invest in ICI or any other company quoted on the Stock Exchange. If BT controls 80 per cent. of the market and is the dominant supplier of telecommunications services—if it is a monopoly—how can the investor judge the return on his investment? Who will determine the dividends? Might it not be cheaper and better to do what the Government should do anyway—to distinguish between capital expenditure and current expenditure, so that the PSBR is not a mish-mash of money spent on day-to-day Government services and capital investment in long-term projects? Would it not be cheaper for the Government to raise capital in the gilts market, as they do at the moment, and invest that in British Telecom? Would that not be better than going through the rigmarole of denationalising BT to obtain the same amount of money at a higher price on the stock market? I hope that the Minister will address himself to those questions during the next few months.
Why do we need a new regulatory body? Why cannot the Office of Fair Trading do the job? In my view, with liberalisation, there is already a need for a regulatory body. It is wrong that Ministers should blow the whistle

on such matters. It may lead to embarrassment for Ministers, so an independent body should take over the job. The Government have been using the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to monitor the nationalised industries. Why not use the commission?
Another major issue on which the Government must answer some questions and recognise the dangers is the future of the telecommunications equipment industry. If the industry is to be internationally competitive, it must have a large enough home market to be able to sell abroad. If the market is to be split up, damaged and opened by the Government action, it could be that our telecommunications equipment manufacturers will be put at a disadvantage when compared to the American and other suppliers abroad, who have much larger domestic markets than our industry has to supply.
The Government have to keep a clear eye on the future of the market and ensure that our telecommunications equipment manufacturers are not in the position where they are beaten hands down by overseas suppliers in years ahead because of the market being broken up here. The Government have to look hard at the number of telecommunication manufacturers that we have and decide whether the present structure, which has partly arisen out of the cosy relationship that existed between the Post Office and its suppliers in the past, is the right one for the future.
We are moving into a period of exciting, new and dramatic developments. We have direct broadcasting by satellite and the whole prospect of cable being laid for television and other services, which raises major questions about how our telecommunications are to be provided. The Government have to demonstrate in the actions that they are proposing that they will safeguard the interests of the industry and those that work in it, safeguard the interests of the consumers who use the telecommunications service and ensure that the competition that they are suggesting will not be bogus competition, and BT will not be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire with these new arrangements.

Mr. John Golding: My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and I have been on standby all night to express our complete opposition to the Government proposals. We, too, are interested to hear the answers to the questions posed by the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth). Unlike the hon. Member, however, we do not support the creation of another quango regulatory body outside Government.
My one question to the Government is this: how can it be in the interests of telecommunication to distribute its profits by way of dividend rather than plough those profits back into the development and improvement of telecommunications?

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I thank the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) for raising this subject. It is a touchstone of the Government's attitude to public monopoly and to the requirements of the British telecommunications industry and BT, in particular, that we should look at this issue.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the character of the regulatory body and to what extent we shall have a hybrid


monopoly within the network. We have decided to create a new regulatory body for the regulation of telecommunications which will probably be called the Office of Telecommunications. It will be modelled on the Office of Fair Trading.
The head of the new body will be the director of telecommunications and will have powers and duties on the telecom market similar to those of the Director General of Fair Trading. It would not be appropriate to leave the task of regulating telecommunications with the Office of Fair Trading, since the present activities of that body would be swamped.
The importance of telecommunications also demands the creation of a new body that is properly answerable to Parliament. In a ideal world there would be no need to regulate telecommunications as the best regulation comes from market forces.
However, we must be realistic and accept that—in the near future, at least—BT will have perhaps 95 per cent. of the United Kingdom telecommunications market. As with any dominant interest, there will have to be controls to protect both the customer and the competitor, and the director of telecommunications will be responsible for monitoring the compliance of all licensees, not just BT. It is likely that it will be the major concern of the director that he will investigate anti-competitive practices throughout the telecommunications market. He will also take over the duties of POUNC in the investigation of consumer complaints.
British Telecom will remain a dominant force in telecommunications, although competition with BT will continue to grow. We have already seen the beneficial effects of the implied threat of project Mercury on some of BT's business activities. The Office of Telecommunications will prevent abuse of the monopoly power of the organisation. Furthermore, we propose to give opportunities to all BT's employees to become more involved in the business through employee shareholdings, and management will be freed from the present Government restrictions on borrowing, and hence on investment. I am confident that the response by BT to our proposals represents a considerable challenge, that it will be a major change in motivation and efficiency, and will lead to a better allocation of resources. The new challenge will be met in a way which should give real benefits to all.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. He asked whether we would have true competition. I am sure that he is aware that the process of introducing true competition has been proceeding apace—certainly in connecting a variety of devices to the network. We are also introducing project Mercury, which, as I said earlier, is starting to have a tangible effect on the behaviour of BT. Changes are taking place in its provision for business users. Those changes can only be welcomed. So there is competition at the edge of the network and in the supply of devices to the network. Within the network, we shall have to find our way as we go along, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that today is not the day to try to say what the proportion will be. That will be decided by a number of forces, as BT becomes privatised.
The hon. Gentleman made the assertion that we should guard against unjustified change. Pressures for change in some cases have little to do with the relationship with Government or with the method by which BT is controlled. The pressure comes from the technology

changes themselves. There is such a huge sea of change now in the variety and impact of information technology in telecommunications—which, in turn, affects the need for funds, which will be growing at a massive rate during the next few years—that we have little choice but to free BT from the current restrictions on it in the PSBR.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would he a benefit to consumers—and, indeed, to the country and employees. We were encouraged by the announcement made by the Telecommunications Users Association on the day that my right hon. Friend came to this Dispatch Box with his White Paper. That association saw immense benefit for telecommunications users in this country, and went so far as to say it saw much healthier trends arising from this in the pricing of BT services and its charges to the customer.

Mr. John McWilliam: I thank the Minister for giving way. Would he describe as one of the beneficial changes the relatively higher increases in charges to the consumer accruing from recent changes?

Mr. Butcher: The consumer will benefit because the style of management within BT will benefit from a new attitude. The people who will be attracted into the upper levels of BT's directorate will be used to operating in competitive environments for the benefit of consumers in driving prices down.
We are aware that BT has had to undergo many changes in recent years, but we must not forget that it was once a Civil Service department. There have been changes in the way it has attacked its business plans in its current role. Whereas BT has behaved in a somewhat predatory manner—I know that Sir George Jefferson will call me to task for saying that—it may have had the less healthy aspects of a monopoly, albeit a public monopoly. We now wish to see the other side of a business-like approach, an increase in efficiency. Therefore, we are delighted to see Sir George setting himself the target of a 25 per cent. increase in efficiency within BT over the next three years. That is an issue that will continue regardless of BT's ownership. We wish to accelerate that trend.

Mr. Richard Page: Already customers have told me that the liberalisation within BT has produced more efficiency and interest in providing a service to the customer than ever before. I ask the Minister to resist vehemently the softly, softly approach of the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) and of some Labour Members. We need to liberalise BT if we are to compete against the Japannese and other electrical manufacturers in the world.

Mr. Butcher: I notice that the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said that the speed at which liberalisation had occurred in BT had been breathtaking. I hope that all those who are writing to me from the supplier side of the industry, and indeed from some of the consumer bodies, will note the hon. Gentleman's words. I am accused of not taking the liberalisation process forward sufficiently rapidly. Some hon. Members in the House now are constantly exhorting me to take that process through the standards making and testing procedures at a much greater rate. My hon. Friend's remarks will be reported to critics, particularly those in the supply companies.
The hon. Member for Thornaby said that BT had been a political football. It is precisely because of that that we


now wish, once and for all, to free it from the clammy fingers of politicians. We are a benign party in that respect. We wish to give BT the freedom to react to market forces. We wish to take it out of the political arena, and, as the hon. Gentleman hinted, I suspect that that will be an election issue.
It will be an election issue, not simply because we get a vicarious thrill out of adding this to our manifesto commitments, but because the impact of the timing required to sell shares will restrain us. It will be a massive sale which may have to be phased. It could take some time and I think that it is right that we should take the approach that seeks to put the regulatory body in place and then prepare the groundwork for a share sale in the aftermath of the next general election. That is a responsible attitude to take and I commend it to the House.
The hon. Gentleman made a thoroughly relevant point regarding equipment suppliers. There has been concern that within the cosy relationship, as he called it, between the equipment suppliers and BT, we have not produced the products that are internationally competitive and which sell in the Third world markets. I do not want to enter into a debate on this accasion as to how effective the communications industry has been in the United Kingdom, but it is fair to assert that the share of world trade that BT equipment manufacturers have had internationally has plumetted over the past 15 years. It may be that within the relationship between BT and supply equipment companies the overspecification and overinvolvement of BT in laying down those specifications has produced products that have not been very relevant or even competitive in the international market.
We shall make BT an election issue. We shall take our case to the country. There is immense scope within the proposed Bill for domestic manufacturers and for those who wish to offer such things as value-added network services. It is absolutely right that BT should be free to obtain money on the open market without constant haggling over its impact on the public sector borrowing requirement. The difficulties that Sir George Jefferson and his staff have faced in raising capital have had an impact on pricing the services of BT. How many corporations that size have to fund their investment from their current income? How many times have hon. Members received letters from their constituents about the high standing charges for telephones and the charges for usage?
In reaction to such pressure we said that BT should have another rush of adrenalin and another breath of fresh air. We said that it should invite participation from the market in its ownership, and that that should have an impact on its management methods and motivation. I notice that two expert hon. Members are in the Chamber who have close links with the Post Office Engineering Union. I should have thought that the POEU was one of the happiest unions in the United Kingdom now. It can look forward to a dramatic increase in its workload. If its members take this opportunity to maximise their skills, they presumably will be able to continue to get a proper return for their labour, if not a comfortable living.
Furthermore, we hope to offer BT employees participation in the ownership of their own organisation. At present ownership is a nebulous thing. The State apparently, and in theory, owns BT. I suppose that Opposition Members would argue that it does so in

practice. However, to most people it remains a remote corporation, which has suffered from the unkind attentions of Ministers and which has perhaps not had enough influence exerted on it by consumers. Again, the hon. Member for Thornaby was right. In the final analysis the impact on consumers is what matters. We do not denationalise simply for the sake of dogma. I happen not to like the word "privatise" and I would sooner use the phrase "wider ownership".

Mr. Toby Jessel: I apologise for the fact that I had to leave the Chamber for part of my hon. Friend's speech. However, he has just referred to consumer interests. Has he heard a rumour to the effect that BT intends to charge for directory inquiries? If so, on compassionate grounds, will he consider making BT aware of the interests of blind subscribers? The directory inquiry service is vital to them because they cannot look up telephone numbers in directories. It is essential that they should have a link with the outside world. Therefore, will my hon. Friend ask BT to make an exception for registered blind persons?

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend should make a happy temporary alliance with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). He and I will be discussing—

Mr. Golding: May we invite the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) to attend the House at 2.30 to make his points for the handicapped?

Mr. Butcher: The last event of this Session of Parliament will be a debate on that subject during which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and I will look at that type of topic. If it is only a rumour that my hon. Friend has heard he would not expect me to comment, but if it is more than a rumour—I shall check that this morning—I shall be happy to write to him and give the Department's view on whether we can do things for the disadvantaged people to whom he has referred.
We are, at the end of a long debate, hoping to send £46,333,677,300 on its way to Her Majesty. I know that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is waiting to wrestle with the impact of that on the velocity of sterling M3. It is with that happy passing of the buck that I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House; immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to the Order of the House this day; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3)(i) of Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.), the Industrial Training (Paper and Paper Products Board) (Revocation) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 771) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3)(i) of Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.), the Industrial Training (Printing and


Publishing Board) (Revocation) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 772) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

National Theatre Museum

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Michael Marshall: I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State looking so fresh at this hour of the morning. I know that he is here in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, who, with his typical courtesy, wrote to me to explain that due to a previous overseas commitment he could not be here. I do not want to downgrade the Under-Secretary's role when I mention my right hon. Friend the Minister, but the Under-Secretary is as well aware as I am that this debate is of special interest to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. I am grateful for the support of a number of my hon. Friends at this time in the morning, including my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), with his interests in the art and heritage committee of my party. Beyond that, it would be invidious to go round this morning's packed assembly.
I do not wish to repeat all the developments since the publication of the Rayner scrutiny, the report associated with Mr. Gordon Burrett. I single out three manifestations of what I believe is almost unparalleled interest in the future of a museum in this country. They are perhaps best summarised by the debate in another place on 8 July in which, as far as I could work out, every living ex-Minister for the Arts expressed his concern about the matter. There was the collection and handing over of about 15,000 signatures last week collected by The Standard and presented to the Minister for the Arts by leading figures from the West End theatre.
Finally, we have before us the fifth report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts. I congratulate hon. Members on both sides of the House on the report made available this week on the future of the theatre museum. It is a timely and balanced document. It is a model of the way in which Select Committees can make positive contributions to important issues of the day.
When I speak of the existing theatre museum I am referring to the Victoria and Albert theatre museum reflecting the existing collection, which comes from many sources and which is awaiting transfer to the British theatre museum that is to be built in Covent Garden.
I also declare my interests. I have a general interest as chairman of the all-party group on the theatre. I also have a more direct and personal interest. I hope that the House will bear with me if this appears to be a commercial; it is not intended in that sense. I am a theatrical historian. I have been fortunate enough to publish four theatrical books in the past four years. That has involved the collection and use of a great deal of theatrical material, much of which has been gathered through the Victoria and Albert theatre museum, although material has been gathered from other sources and other parts of the world, particularly the United States. Thus, from direct experience I have been able to compare many theatre archives.
I am also the declared donor of what is to be termed the Jack Buchanan collection. It consists of material which I have put together and which has been donated to me by the family of the late Jack Buchanan and many of his admirers. Like the collections from Lord Harewood and from many other sources it has been pledged in the full


expectation that the British theatre museum will go ahead. It would cause a great deal of ill-feeling if it was suggested that the collections which have been acquired from many sources may be rejected. There is no way in which the great volume of material can remain where it is to any effective purpose.
I wish to bring out three aspects of the British theatre museum's future. First, for me the question of sponsorship is based on a personal commitment, but I see important implications for other forms of sponsorship. As the recent letter in The Times from Sir John Sainsbury clearly stated, he felt that commitments entered into by successive Governments should be honoured. The Lord Harewood collection particularly involves ballet material and the Rambert bequest. A number of other collections have already been put in the Victoria and Albert theatre museum awaiting more effective collation and availability to the general public.
Secondly, it is well nigh impossible to undertake the fullest range of research in the present facilities. I do not decry the efforts of Mr. Alexander Schouvaloff and his staff. I pay tribute to them. I have benefited from their help and encouragement. But all theatre historians who have used the Victoria and Albert's present theatre collection find that it is constrained in a number of directions. The present resources are cramped and are inadequate for the ever-growing collection. There is great difficulty in following other than the most obvious line of inquiry.
For example, if one wishes to study the work of a theatre director or actor, one can, if one knows the names and dates of the productions with which that person was concerned, look at a great deal of information about those productions. However, if a general across-the-board study of a particular part of the theatre or even of that person is wanted, there is a problem. The whole collection has been waiting to be catalogued in detail over a number of years and to be housed in a way that would make it accessible to serious students and the wider general public. Therefore, I do not decry the efforts of the V and A staff. Indeed, the success of the British theatre museum depends on their enthusiasm, energy and ideas for the future.
But the present collection is bursting at the seams. There are vast treasures of existing material, apart from the new material that has been pledged, which is not available at present. In the transfer of the existing, open and working Victoria and Albert theatre collection, together with the bequests, some of which I have instanced today, vast opportunities will open up for the scholar and the general public.
I shall put that in the context of the hoped for and, I believe, certain commercial development of the British theatre museum. I accept part of the Burrett analysis. He was right to look at the ways in which the museum could be, if not totally self-financing, at least contributing substantially to its recurring costs. I should like to use my experience to try to suggest a few ways ahead.
I support the analysis in the Select Committee's fifth report, when it refers in paragraph 13 to
current tendencies in arts funding which in our opinion are towards a pattern of plural funding, including proportions of money coming from sponsorship, trading activity and from the public paying for admission.
I support admission charges. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has said that that

should be a matter for the trustees' discretion. I know that the present and future Victoria and Albert management has it in mind that that is a possibility. That is the way in which it is likely to move.
There is some force in the Select Committee's argument that some free availability might be possible for pensioners and students up to a certain age. There is also something in the free day argument. Two free days is a little excessive. Perhaps a free day on Sunday would be sensible and might act as a trailer to people who come to see the museum, who might come back on a contributing basis.
I have already referred to the importance of personal contributions. I shall consider some of the direct commercial opportunities that will be opening up. I discussed the problem of the present cataloguing. In the cataloguing of the new theatre museum there will be opportunities not to catalogue the mass of material which would be unrealistic in the early stages. However, discreet parts of the collection could be made available to a wider public with a commercial return, which would be of great advantage to the collection as a whole.
For example, the Anthony Hippsley-Cox circus collection, the finest private collection of such material in the world, has been pledged to the theatre museum. To publish a cataloguing and illustrative document about that material would be of great interest not just to scholars but to the wider public and circus lovers around the world. Similarly the Bridget D'Oyly Carte design collection will be of wide interest to many who are active in that area, amateur as well as professional users.
On the more popular front, I know that the British theatre museum has in mind to join in commercial publishing partnerships for what one might call the more popular theatre book. Several hundred such books are published annually and the prospect of underpinning that part of the publishing industry is of great importance, not only to the museum, but to the health of publishing and employment in the industry.
The adaptation of new technology in microfiche will allow the sale and general development of posters and programmes and there will be a range of souvenir sales on the widest basis, from Yorick's skull to Cinderella's slipper. With the retail point of sale, as presently planned, the museum will be a live and active part of the development of Covent Garden, to be open to the public outside normal office hours, with refreshment facilities and so on. All who have seen how Covent Garden has become a notably successful development will regard the museum as a major asset and an important commercial as well as cultural opportunity.
To sum up, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to urge our right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts to make an early announcement of continued commitment to the British theatre museum project. That is important, because of the uncertainty that has been generated by the report. I recognise the validity of a critical look at these matters, but the uncertainty is causing considerable difficulty, and a hiatus has been caused in regard to further collections that are on offer to the museum.
If my right hon. Friend will announce continued commitment to the project he will be fully justified in looking for strong evidence of the sort of commercial return that I have described. Too little attention has been paid to the commercial prospects, though these are some


of the plans and ideas on which the present staff of the Victoria and Albert theatre museum are working for the new British theatre museum.
I have tried to show the sort of commercial developments that could be readily forthcoming. I do not pretend that they will meet capital costs or even all the recurrent costs, but the commercial possibilities and the special exhibition admission charges, as well as other admission charges, can show a much more direct return for taxpayers' investment than could be achieved at almost any other museum in this country.
When we add to that the British theatre museum's obvious draw as a tourist attraction and as a source for school visits and education in the performing arts and consider the value of the archives—£20 million and rising—any reasonable cost-benefit analysis must suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that there will rarely be a better opportunity to show the way in which the public purse can yield a positive return from the private consumer, and it is in the interests of getting a positive cash return and of public good-will that I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to use his best endeavours to bring the situation to a satisfactory conclusion.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Waldegrave): The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) for providing a timely opportunity to discuss this issue. Decisions will be made relatively soon and it is useful to have a chance to discuss the matter.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I point to the slightly surprising fact that, after all the campaigns that have been waged, the public interest, the letters to The Times and the excellent and public-spirited campaign by The Standard, all the hon. Members present for the debate are on the Conservative Benches. The New Testament tells us of those who were surprised by the arrival of the bridegroom in the night. Some were at weddings and some had merely failed to put oil in their lamps and so on. Surely that is what has happened to the combined forces of the Social Democratic and Liberal Alliance and the Labour Party, not to speak of the Irish in their various manifestations. The Conservative Party, when it matters, is here, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to be here to discuss an important issue.
For the past few days my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has been at the UNESCO conference in Mexico City and has delivered there an interesting and thoughtful speech, as one would expect of him. In his absence I have had the pleasure of taking the Ruritanian title, temporarily, of Deputy Minister for the Arts. It has allowed me to escape for a moment from the acerbity of the academic debates in which I am normally involved into the more friendly debates—although occasionally acerbity creeps in—of the arts lobby. I have had the pleasure of being briefed by officials and learning about new issues.
The two museums on which I have had the pleasure of delivering short speeches to the House—the Bethnal Green museum and the theatre museum—are rather different cases, although we are discussing them both because of the same report, the Rayner study, done by Mr. Burrett. The issues are different. Both theatres have their strength and both have a strong case to be made in favour of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) has heard me make some of these remarks

before, because he is always here when these matters are discussed. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend is a doughty champion of his Department. Those of us in the rest of the Department watch with awe the skill with which he defends his budget. As he is far enough away to be unable to stop me paying him a tribute, I can say that he is not a man given to much self-advertisement, but he has been, and is being, an extremely effective Minister for the Arts. We do well to pay tribute to him.
I very much agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel said about plurality of funding. I am sure that this is the way forward. It is the way forward in wider aspects of the Department's budget. Universities and all the other great institutions that serve the public should look carefully at the extent to which they need to use that awesome power of the State to compel those who do not use a service to finance it on behalf of those who do. It is a power that must be used from time to time. Without it there would be no State services of any kind. But it is right always to look with a careful and sceptical eye at the use of the State's power to tax and provide the money on a compulsory basis.
Therefore, it was in order for Sir Derek Rayner to put in hand a report to look at the relative merits of different kinds of funding in the museum world. Where there is a chance to bring in funds that come voluntarily, without the big stick of the Inland Revenue behind them, it is right to bring them in. One of the most attractive aspects of the theatre museum is the extent to which private donors have already, to a significant and valuable extent, backed the project in the value of the great collections that have already been given.
My hon. Friend is not so far away as my right hon. Friend, but he is none the less unable to stop me from paying tribute to him for what he said about his own potential donation. My hon. Friend is a serious contributor and historian in these areas. One sometimes feels that it is the privilege of another place always to be able to find a particular expert in a debate. It can always find a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority or a former ambassador to Washington. On this occasion our House has managed to find a distinguished theatrical historian to contribute to the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be embarrassed if I thank him for what he has said about his own intentions with regard to the Buchanan archive.
The decisions are not finally made. Even if they were, my hon. Friend would not expect me to steal my right hon. Friend's credit and thunder if they were to be made in the way that my hon. Friend wanted. Nor, of course, would he expect me to divert from my right hon. Friend the opprobrium of the House and the Standard if the decision were to go the other way.
The types of argument that have been made are those that carry great weight with Ministers and officials. The pressure on resources is great. I was especially glad not to hear the argument that runs "Oh, £4·3 million is only a small sum as compared with overall Government expenditure." That argument always weakens the case for additional spending. There are many people in Carey Street who earn £10,000 a year and who say that £500 is a small sum. That is a good way to go bankrupt.
All the sums that we, as custodians of the public purse, take from taxpayers must be cared for. In my sort of money, £4·7 million is a lot. Perhaps that is true for my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell).


I could easily spend £4·3 million on several projects in universities. It is not a trivial sum. Nevertheless, I was glad not to hear that the £4·3 million was regarded as so small as to be containable within the margin of error. All such sums of money must be guarded carefully.
Nevertheless, in terms of the value of the collection and of the opportunities that genuinely exist—the signs are that they genuinely exist—for firm sponsorship in the future or commercial involvement, the sums are not so great as to rule the project completely out of court. I am not wasting the time of the House by saying that matters are being considered when that is not true. It is not closed. It is not a case of "I have to say … " If we were discussing a project costing £50 million we should almost certainly have to say "Not now, not in the present climate". The matter is not yet settled, but it is a fine judgment.
We have received many letters, petitions and representations from distinguished actors from a programme that we do not refer to in Whitehall as it infuriates our advisers—we watch it, of course. It is clear that many people in the theatre and elsewhere have a keen interest in the matter.
My personal criticism of the report would be that I was a little surprised at the remarks about the lesser opportunities for research in this area. Although I am not a professional like my hon. Friend, I spent a good part of my misspent youth studying the origins of Greek tragedy and the relations of the dithyramb to Sophocles' early choruses. The idea that there was no opportunity for research into the history and origins of theatre therefore struck me as surprising.
The counter-case was well put in The Times Literary Supplement which correctly said that an ephemeral art such as ballet or theatre is traceable only by what is left

behind—props, pictures, notices and, in modern times, photographs—and the reconstruction of its history depends upon a wide range of different types of material and objects in a way that research into a written art form such as poetry does not.
I am sure that there is room for serious scholarship in this, one of Britain's strongest cultural traditions. Without being unduly nationalistic, I have seen in one paper the claim that London is the centre of the performing arts. That may be a slight overestimate. The inhabitants of Milan might have something to say about opera, those of us who were lucky enough to see the Paris ballet this week may suspect that the inhabitants of Paris could make claims in that respect, and people in Berlin might be able to talk about orchestras. Nevertheless, in the theatre, at any rate, for very many years—and in modern times also the ballet—we have been pre-eminent and the strength of that case will not be missed when Ministers take their decision.
I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and to my other hon. Friends who are here to support him in the debate. The decision will be reached in the not too distant future. The campaigns that have been waged have educated many people in the importance of this project. We all hope—I know that my right hon. Friend does—that the contraints of money can be overcome. One advantage of the campaigns will be to make the project a household name before it starts, which will no doubt greatly improve attendances. As I have said, the difficulties are real because constraints on resources are currently so great, but we hope that they will be overcome. The sympathetic and persuasive way in which my hon. Friend has put the case today must help the case of the theatre museum.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Nine o'clock am.